Observed 9 September 2026. Acquisition CLOSED. This is a policy/standing packet; exercised requests and reversals belong to the parallel outcomes lane. No registry operation, account, form, outreach, domain-content retrieval or ordinary Nominet GET was used.
IWF's documented cooperation with Nominet predates the 2021 UKSIC grant. The evidence does not establish that receiving the grant created a suspension entitlement. The current policy's named-agency list, a historical IWF cooperation statement and reported IWF requests are distinct evidence types. Their combination warrants investigating a separate referral arrangement; it does not supply its terms.
The official [.UK Policy page](http[local research file] read at its current-policy section and future-policy distinction, links the Criminal Practices Policy dated 6 July 2026 and registrant terms dated 20 March 2024. It separately identifies revised agreements/policies taking effect on 9 February 2027, and says the Criminal Practices Policy will remain unchanged at that transition. The upload directories are not substituted for document dates. This establishes what Nominet currently publishes, not historical applicability to every reported case.
The [6 July 2026 policy](http[local research file] supplies this mechanism:
| Question | Published rule | Locator |
|---|---|---|
| Who establishes criminality? | A listed UK enforcement agency provides official written certification. Nominet describes its role as administrative checking, acknowledging limited criminal-assessment expertise. | §§2–3, PDF 3 |
| What follows? | Following checks and notice, Nominet places the domain in special status unless satisfactory action already occurred. | §3, PDF 3 |
| Notice and urgency | At least 48 hours' notice; significant evidence of imminent public harm permits immediate suspension with senior-management approval. Agency confirmation that criminal use ended stops the process. | §3, PDF 4 |
| Duration/effect | .UK: minimum 24 months; .cymru/.wales: until expiry, then cancellation/re-registration. Suspension/redirection disrupts access without removing hosted content. | §§3,5, PDF 4,7 |
| Challenge | Criminality assessment: agency complaint/appeal routes, with ombudsman, police-conduct and judicial-review examples. Policy application: Nominet complaints. | §3, PDF 4 |
| Named standing | Section 4 lists 15 enforcement entries, including Gambling Commission. Neither IWF nor UKSIC appears. This is a list observation, not exclusion of every separate route. | §4, PDF 4–6 |
Nominet's current-linked [registrant terms](http[local research file] prohibit unlawful domain use (§6.1.5). Section10.1.2 reserves sole-discretion action for use, or high risk of use, likely to endanger DNS, users or Nominet systems; this differs from an agency certifying criminality. Section10.2.5 separately permits changes to implement a valid binding court order or avoid contempt. The private policy therefore must not be redescribed as a court order.
The terms' proscribed-name definition requires both an apparent serious-sexual-offence meaning and no reasonably contemplated legitimate use (§1); §6.1.4 applies it to the domain's characters. That is not a prohibition of any unpopular website content. Section13.2 gives nonparties no enforcement rights under these terms; it does not negate rights arising under a separate agreement.
Remedies also have limits: §§12.3–12.5 exclude specified losses and cap liability at £5,000, with those clauses inapplicable to consumers under §12.6. Section13.8 selects England/Wales law and courts, accepting local law/courts for Scottish or Northern Irish consumers. These are contract provisions, not an enforceability opinion or case-specific ruling. Material locators: PDF 3,5–9.
The historical [Domain registration policy review: Terms of Reference](http[local research file] PDF 2 §3, reports that Nominet is an IWF member and will act promptly to remove access to child sexual abuse images and criminally obscene adult content. It describes enforcement-agency working relationships in the preceding paragraph. The record is set in 2013 by its reference to the 4 August 2013 newspaper article and dated review timetable; an exact publication day was not established.
This is explicit historical cooperation, not a signed IWF referral protocol. It does not identify evidential thresholds, a binding certification power, notice exceptions, an IWF-specific appeal process or UKSIC authority. It predates the 2021 consortium pledge examined in the accepted award packet. That chronology weighs against a claim that the later grant originated the relationship. It does not prove there was no earlier financing or that the relationship's scope never changed. Current IWF case counts belong to the outcomes packet and must retain their periods and request/action distinctions.
Nominet's [3 April 2014 announcement](http[local research file] announced changes effective 4 May 2014. Its criminal-domain section said a suspension could be lifted when criminal conduct ended, when wrongly applied, or when the referring agency failed to respond within 10 working days. Its separate proscribed-name section described senior-manager checking, a 30-day appeal window and an independent external review of unresolved disagreements. These statements concern different decision tracks.
Those historical safeguards are useful, but the current CPP does not reproduce that 10-working-day nonresponse rule in its inspected complaints section. I have not established whether another operative document preserves it, nor identified the proscribed-name external reviewer. The current general complaints landing failed to load; an indexed excerpt was discovered but was not treated as the full procedure. The generic registrar complaint template surfaced in search is expressly a template, not a substitute for Nominet's own current procedure. No general right to automatic reinstatement has been inferred.
Nominet's [16 July 2026 blog](http[local research file] reports Royal Assent to the Crime and Policing Act on 29 April 2026, describes court-ordered domain suspension as a backstop, and says commencement legislation was still needed, with an indicative end-November expectation. It reports government reassurance that voluntary CPP suspensions remain the first route. This packet does not verify the Act's provisions, its commencement as of 9 September, or any actual order. The linked legislation.gov.uk PDF returned 429 and was not read. The statutory instrument/commencement question is parked for a separately selected run; the blog is evidence of Nominet's stated implementation position.
All successful source reads in this lane used the official web reader. No original HTML or PDF bytes were acquired. Retained policy-*.reader.txt files are exact tool-return derivatives; their hashes identify those derivatives, never the underlying originals. policy-captures.json records URLs, dates, ancestry, locators, failures and source states.
The CPP's complete seven-page reader text was read, including every agency entry and the version table. Registrant terms: complete nine-page reader text, with the substantive authority/remedy analysis confined to the cited clauses. The historical review's complete four-page text was read; no contribution form was used. The 2014 announcement's substantive body, lines 43–73, and the July 2026 blog's substantive body, lines 43–102, were read. The current policy landing's lines 51–141 establish current/future links; unrelated council names and member-account material are not findings here. No screenshot or visual-original inspection is claimed.
The old /policies link returned a non-retryable safe-open error. Targeted official search identified a genuinely different current publication page; the failed URL was not retried. The Security & Protection reader returned 429; the Complaints link returned an internal error; the linked Act PDF returned 429. All stayed closed, with no GET, URL-variant, mirror or support-layer recovery. Search-only hits and generic templates are recorded as discovery/exclusion rather than read operative authority. No new donor or grant-agreement hunt was undertaken.
The finite next record is an IWF–Nominet referral/membership operating protocol or a public administrative case record explaining how an IWF request becomes a registry decision, who may contest the classification, and who can authorize reversal. Likely custodians are Nominet registry/legal operations and IWF. A second narrow gap is the actual current Nominet complaint procedure or identified external-review mandate. Until obtained, the defensible mechanism is separate contractual registry action, listed-agency certification and documented IWF cooperation. Expertise and earlier operational cooperation remain alternatives to a funding-created-right explanation.