Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.

The ‘reserved names’ illustrates Nominet’s biggest problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 3, 2013
Posts
142
Reaction score
2
Nominet proposes to set aside a list of reserved named to be protected from the release mechanism being put forward in the direct.uk consultation, and to give those names to a number of government bodies, who are about to lose their .gov.uk internet identities, an example is ‘independent.uk’, which will be reserved for the Supreme Court.

Nominet has confirmed that this has not been requested by government, this is Nominet’s own initiative. Nominet has not answered following the direct questions:

‘What is the legal basis for giving such a valuable ‘gift’ to government?’, and;

‘Why do you describe as not ‘meaningful’, the rebranding options that are currently available to those bodies, ie that they may seek out new domains under the current second level libraries (.org.uk, .ac.uk, etc)?’

For me, this kind of arguably worthy initiative by Nominet to help its friends in the government, and keep them sweet during a period of consultation to introduce a controversial shock to the uk internet market, illustrates Nominet’s whole problem as a trading entity.

Nominet’s role in the world is poorly defined. My MP Andrew Smith has confirmed that a number in government regard the relationship between Nominet and the government as ‘unsatisfactory’. Nominet wants to be regulator, competitive business, charity feeder, and unregulated by government all in one. Anything, except a membership organisation!

In the vacuum of uncertainty, the more commercially minded directors are presented with wonderful opportunities to exploit the closeness with the government, to business advantage (we don’t know if they do).

The raft of ex-civil servants who are now employed by Nominet seem to think they are still working for government, and seem to be supporting and putting forward proposals for the government, and seem to have forgotten that they are working for a private company, limited by guarantee, regulated by its members.

As such, you cannot just give assets of huge commercial worth to government entities without going through a process. The government entities have no entitlement to those services (although some that I met clearly seem to think that they have). This transaction will be attacked on both fronts. Even if Nominet were to gain permission from its members to give away such assets, the proposals effectively offers extremely lucrative domains, at below market rate to public bodies, and bypasses the release mechanism. Many of the names will be contested (eg Independent, food), and in some situations, no doubt the public body would lose out through the standard release mechanism. If they wanted to buy the domains from others in a “contention set”, they’d probably have to part with a lot of money - just like everyone else. And we can’t have that. I was struck by the air of entitlement from public officials at the round table. If businesses said “I’m here to make sure I get my name”, they would be derided as have a “vested interest”.

To me, the transaction looks like this company giving away valuable domains to gain influence with the government, or to avoid trouble from the government. Meanwhile, everyone else will be left to scrap it out..

The second point, and the most important for me, is that Nominet is not a supplier of .gov.uk domains to the government, that is currently fullfilled by JANET who have always maintained the .gov.uk and ac.uk TLD, and who are themselves a public body.

Government bodies are obliged to tender, and go through a proper process to receive any services from a private company. Relevant issues for the government to consider are the value of those assets being requested, the other competitive offers available to the taxpayer, and the integrity and quality of the service provider. Those government bodies would not be able to, for example, ignore unresolved allegations of breaches of directors’ duties between a company and its owners.
 
I've always thought that the reserved names issue is going to be the main thing that prevents the whole direct .uk proposal going ahead. Already, many other government and public departments think that nominet should be giving them first refusal to other .uk domains. nominet have been bending over backwards to try to please anyone who opposes their proposals. I'm not sure what they are going to do now.

I've had discussions directly with nominet regarding the food.uk domain which I think I should be entitled to as the owner of the .co.uk domain. They have said it is not their problem and that if I contact the food standards agency, they have the power to release the food.uk domain to me, if they decide they do not need it.
 
I've always thought that the reserved names issue is going to be the main thing that prevents the whole direct .uk proposal going ahead. Already, many other government and public departments think that nominet should be giving them first refusal to other .uk domains. nominet have been bending over backwards to try to please anyone who opposes their proposals. I'm not sure what they are going to do now.

I've had discussions directly with nominet regarding the food.uk domain which I think I should be entitled to as the owner of the .co.uk domain. They have said it is not their problem and that if I contact the food standards agency, they have the power to release the food.uk domain to me, if they decide they do not need it.

Patronising, or what.
 
Patronising, or what.

That's what I thought. Nominet said that it was their decision to reserve the name and not the Food Standards Agency, and then they said that it was nothing to do with them, and that I had to contact the Food Standards Agency to resolve the issue.
 
That's what I thought. Nominet said that it was their decision to reserve the name and not the Food Standards Agency, and then they said that it was nothing to do with them, and that I had to contact the Food Standards Agency to resolve the issue.

That's pretty shocking - sounds like the response from some lower echelon plebs.

I think one thing that may (but should not) stand against you is the fact that the domain is undeveloped - there's nothing there, no service, no value.

Where as food.gov.uk is a critical service that needs to continue and a place to live online - and continue to be used - a sort of every man for himself scenario.

I don't think its a reason you should lose it, at least back in Oct 2011 it was 'doing something'.
 
This is absolutely pivotal this, and I think deserves more of our attention than everything else. They steered us away from it in the roundtable - it’s dangerous for them.

The government has no right to any of these assets, and directors don’t have the right to give away company assets as I understand it.

If the government bodies feel they have a right, then I’m sorry, but they will need to change the law to assert their rights to .UK domains. Last week, the minister wrote to me and made it clear that they have ‘no locus’ to intervene in Nominet business, ie. they have no rights over or responsibility for this company.
 
I don't agree. .uk domains are fundamental UK infrastructure and key Gov't brands should absolutely have domains reserved if .uk were to go ahead.

Nominet is not a private company, it must be run by the members in the UK interest.

However, I stand by the fact that .uk shouldn't happen because of the potential for exactly this sort of confusion. .uk is a security and fraud nightmare waiting to happen.
 
...Last week, the minister wrote to me and made it clear that they have ‘no locus’ to intervene in Nominet business, ie. they have no rights over or responsibility for this company.

In my opinion they should have, something I have always argued. Nominet is able to dodge one hell of a lot of accountability matters by being an NFP business, and despite the very misleading 'concerns' expressed in the past, UK Gov seems to prefer this arrangement. It's such a shadowy matter, like so much these days where central government is concerned.
 
The idea of a reserve list is an admission of confusion surrounding the new extension .uk and its existing registrants. If the Government is deserving of such actions why not for all the other .co.uk, .org.uk and .me.uk registrants? The whole idea of .uk is preposterous and disruptive that will affect every UK Registrant and Internet user.
 
I don't agree. .uk domains are fundamental UK infrastructure and key Gov't brands should absolutely have domains reserved if .uk were to go ahead..

The food standards agency do have a brand now, it's food.gov.uk , dropping the gov.uk extension means its no longer a brand, it's a generic word. So whatever happens, as long as they have to move from .gov.uk they are going to have to rebrand. On there website they refer to themselves as FSA, that would be a brand, that they could move from one extension to another and keep without rebranding.

The point I'm trying to make, is that they shouldn't have any rights to any generic names.

If nominet are trying to say, that moving to food.uk would be very similar so they are not really rebranding, then this blows the whole case of the .uk, as it is going to be confusingly similar to existing domains for everyone else.
 
I don't agree. .uk domains are fundamental UK infrastructure and key Gov't brands should absolutely have domains reserved if .uk were to go ahead.

Nominet is not a private company, it must be run by the members in the UK interest.

Martin,

I agree with you in principle, .uk domains are fundamental to UK infrastructure, the UK brand clearly belongs to the United Kingdom (OK ignoring GB arguments), and key government brands, including local government etc. should of course have protected domains. But rules are rules, and the law is the law and it is not up to Nominet to attempt to sort out the mess, by creating more mess. The proposal makes the situation worse, not better, and Nominet will be assuming public services that it has not properly tendered for, without the permission of its owners. It is also proposing to give away these names without thinking about all the other worthy ‘claimants’ that also arguably deserve reserved names, and will be outraged at seeing some public bodies getting preferential treatment. For example, some local authorites that I know are very sensitive about central-government centric initiatives. It’s a whole can of worms that Nominet will be opening up.

If Nominet wants to provide public services then good luck to it, but it should jump through all of the hoops that we as suppliers to government have to jump through.

Nominet IS a private company. This wording from a DCMS letter addressed 27 June 2013:

“Government has no locus to intervene in this area .. Nominet’s constitution, as a private company limited by guarantee, provides a number of mechanisms by which Members are able to raise concerns and seek redress.”

Nominet may not want to be a private company. Some members, including myself may not want it to be a private company. But it is a private company, and must adhere to the rules of private ownership, albeit with a public purpose. That does not make it a public provider of choice to those public bodies - they have to go through a process.

Nominet needs to sort out its awful broken constitution first, it can’t just pretend to have an official role in government, even if they and some of us think it should have.
 
.uk is assigned by ICANN, the UK Government is completely out of the loop.
 
Where on earth is Janet/Ukerna in all of this, they are obviously sitting on the fence, when in reality they have an equal say in the destiny of .uk?

Remember, this is an organisation that is directly funded by Central Government:

https://www.ja.net/about-janet/about-us

...so there is the avenue to challenge Nominet's actions, or maybe I'm reading the situation wrong!
 
Spot on Antony,

Janet/Ukerna is the founder of the fudge - and as the official connection between the Government and .UK should explain exactly how this asset came to be transferred into private ownership - and exactly what controls remain in place.

Are there any Janet/Ukerna people on this forum. Does anyone have any contacts in Janet that I/we could approach?
 
Does anyone have a link to the proposed/expected reserved domains?
 
Thanks Edwin. So that list is only the names that will be pushed off their .gov.uk, is there the list of the names reserved for regular reasons?
 
Thanks Edwin. So that list is only the names that will be pushed off their .gov.uk, is there the list of the names reserved for regular reasons?

Here is the full list: http://alphagov.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/govuk-exemptwebsites-2012-12-17.pdf

for the government project outlined here:
http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2012/12/18/agencies-arms-length-bodies/

Note, the list will 'change over time'. In my view, all of these bodies and local authorities qualify for 'reserved status' by the same criteria - and then you should think about every other organisation that is just as deserving: charities, NFPs, the list goes on .. absolute mess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Rule #1

Do not insult any other member. Be polite and do business. Thank you!

Featured Services

Sedo - it.com Premiums

IT.com

Premium Members

AucDom
UKBackorder
Be a Squirrel
Acorn Domains Merch
MariaBuy Marketplace

New Threads

Domain Forum Friends

Other domain-related communities we can recommend.

Our Mods' Businesses

Perfect
Service
Laskos
URL Shortener
*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators
Top Bottom