Nominet Foundation

What do Nominet members here think about this proposal?

http://www.nic.uk/news/latest/?contentId=4618

http://www.nic.uk/policy/consultations/foundation/

Why are trustees not to be elected by the membership who actually own the company?

How does it conflict with government backed schemes e.g. www.getsafeonline.org or http://www.parentscentre.gov.uk/usingcomputersandtheinternet/ or http://www.iwf.org.uk ?

One way to spend £5 million would be to lower the members registration fee by £1?

Interesting about the "Bligh principles" I remember it being used in a .org application several years ago: http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/organic/ii.html

 

Favours for friends?

 

Consultation ends today!

We have sent this on behalf of the UKDNA:

http://www.nic.uk/policy/consultations/foundation/foundationsurvey/


1. What do you think about the proposal for a Nominet Foundation?

As the Hutty clause Article 19A is unlikely to ever be removed, we think it is a good idea.


2. What are your views on the types of potential beneficiaries and are there any you would like added to this list?

Nominet should focus spending the money to the benefit of its members e.g. research in to EPP and DNSSEC. It is important that the Nominet 'brand' doesn't overtake that of its members.

3. What projects or organisations are you aware of that could benefit from a grant from the Nominet Foundation?

There are already many projects like the www.iwf.org.uk - Nominet should be careful not to conflict with any of these existing projects.

4. What other comments do you have?

We are concerned about the proposed governance of the foundation:

"The Foundation will be governed by a board of Trustees - people with appropriate skills and experience. For example, this may be experience of being a charitable Trustee or direct experience of the UK Internet industry. Our current thinking is at least one Trustee should also be a Nominet Board member and at least one should be a Nominet staff member, and the other Trustees should be appointed by an open and competitive appointment process."

As Nominet is a membership organization and the foundation will be spending money that members have generated - shouldn't members have a say in how it is spent?

We believe there should be elected members on the board of trustees or at the very least the appointed Nominet board member should be an elected non-executive.

5. Please give us your contact details

Name: UKDNA

Company: Domain Name Association - Company No: 6300165

Email: [email protected]

 

I've pinged in my response - set out below. The essence of it is that I think they should pay the money back to the people who have overpaid for the registration service. If they won't do that, then let those people decide who to give the money to - rather than setting up another tier of costs and admin while the great and the good decide who to give the money to.

To those of you who have a lot of registrations, if you want to keep control over what happens to your money, get your reply in now to the consultation. Here's the link - it closes today, so don't delay:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/consultations/foundation/

1. What do you think about the proposal for a Nominet Foundation?

Whilst the idea has an obvious superficial appeal, on closer reflection I oppose it.

Nominet is meant to run as a not-for-profit organisation - in other words aiming to break even. I disagree in principle with the idea that - given its monopoly status in respect of .uk domains - it should continue to run at a profit and that those profits should be used to set up a charitable trust.
Firstly, the management should be looking into how to reduce the level of profits that are being made. It is inappropriate to simply accept this as the status quo for a monopoly supplier in a growing market.

In respect of the current surplus, the people who have paid for Nominet to run at a profit - the registrants - did not pay their registration fees on the understanding that they were also paying to fund a privately managed charity, over which they will have no control.

It is to the registrants that I believe the money should be repaid (there is nothing in the Articles that prevents that) - or alternatively who should be asked which of an extended list of existing charities they wish their part of the surplus to go to.

There is no need to create a new charity - with all of the costs and admin overheads that entails - when (if the money is to be given away) it can be given away direct at the behest of the people whose money it is - the registrants.

2. What are your views on the types of potential beneficiaries and are there any you would like added to this list?

My first choice would be to repay it to the registrants. Article 19A speaks only of a 75% majority if the aim is to alter "membership subscriptions or registration fees". I propose that these remain unchanged - but that any surplus is repaid pro-rata to each registrant in respect of each registration. Then the registration process will be run on a break even basis.

If the consensus is to give the money to charity, why create a new charity with the decision making power in the hands of individuals not elected by the registrants. Instead, let's ask each registrant which out of a list of say 30 or so suitable charities they wish their part of any surplus to go to. Let the registrants decide who their money goes to – Nominet would then merely act as an administrator giving the money away each year in the proportions dictated by the registrants.

3. What projects or organisations are you aware of that could benefit from a grant from the Nominet Foundation?

As I said above, create a balanced list of reputable charities and let the registrants decide whether and to whom they wish to donate their money.

4. What other comments do you have?

If there is to be a Nominet Trust, then it should consist of elected trustees chosen on a "one member-one vote" basis by the members - with trustees sitting for a term of 3 years, and also not standing for more than two terms.