Nominet Registrars

[Whois-Search]

The transcript from the ccNSO meeting is now online:

http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-ccnso-members-27mar07.htm

>>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: My name is Wolfgang Kleinwachter. I'm from the University of Aarhus, and I have a question to IDN.IDN. It's more a policy question. You know, formerly, the dot IDN would be a new TLD, a new root zone file, so -- and my question is also to ICANN. Do they have a policy? Will this be a new delegation, or is this part of the delegation for dot GR in -- in Roman letters or could it include also the opportunity to create another national registry, and has it to be the same letters as the characters, like GR? I heard from Russian colleagues that they have dot RU in Latin letters and they plan to have a dot RF for Russian Federation in Cyrillic letters, which would [inaudible] dot RU, but it means the question is, is this now a start -- do we start a process of multiplying national registries or will this be under -- in the hand of the existing, because at the moment, you know, the ccTLD is a monopoly in the country, so would this mean that you have then suddenly competition on the ccT level in the country between dot GR and dot IDN? Thank you.

 

[seb]

Just look at other large not-for-profit member led organisations

Nicely researched

Also at the moment 4 out of 6 are elected and we can vote them out if they don't perform

You can vote out appointeds at the AGM following their appointment.. Maybe you want to consider adding a recommendation that they need to be re-ratified every 2-3 years?

Yes it will and I have thought about making another template like I did for the DRS consultation but not sure whether it will do any good or not.

Personally I'd prefer hearing people's own thoughts on the issue.. it's too simple to just say "I agree with x" and it doesn't indicate whether or not someone understands the underlying issues. Granted this also means taking time you may not have over it, so tough call..


seb
(in severe back pain so don't expect more replies soon..)

 

[gordon]

Just look at other large not-for-profit member led organisations:
"The Society's Directors are elected by you, our members, by postal ballot
before the AGM."
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/about_nationwide/membership_matters/Membership.asp#6

From what it says their entire setup appears to be rather like the one the Nominet board has propose. Note ALL non-execs need to be voted on by the members at an AGM not just what we've termed the "elected" ones. The proposal is to use two different voting methods for the different types but they will both be votes of the members. Perhaps this has been an error in us using the terms elected and appointed which I can understand may have given the impression members did not have a say - they will do for all the non-execs.

"The Council is made up of 52 members: 26 elected by the members of the
National Trust and 26 appointed".
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-thecharity/w-how_we_are_run/w-governance_overview.htm

The Council of the National trust is not the board. The Board of Trustees is. They do not appear from my reading of it to put limits on where they are picked from but leave it as a matter to the Council. It's an interesting setup where the members don't directly elect the Board, are you advocating this?

Also at the moment 4 out of 6 are elected and we can vote them out if they don't perform

Our proposals will still allow members to vote out any non-exec's that do not perform. It is merely the type of ballot that is different.

Yes it will and I have thought about making another template like I did for the DRS consultation but not sure whether it will do any good or not.

The one thing about having many different responses that is good is that if you don't understand how Mr A has explained his concern and Miss B shares that concern but writes it in a different way you have a greater chance of understanding it and addressing it correctly. Therefore I'd hope that people would put in detailed and thoughtful responses that did not rely on merely cutting and pasting someone elses thoughts as this would truly help us understand and address concerns best.

Gordon

 

[gordon]

You can vote out appointeds at the AGM following their appointment.. Maybe you want to consider adding a recommendation that they need to be re-ratified every 2-3 years?

erm, they would do - the proposals are for them to be in place for the same length of term as the other type of non-execs and retire by rotation as per the other non-execs, thus re-appointment would need voted on at the AGM. On reflection I accept this is perhaps not clear from the web site.

Gordon

 

[seb]

erm, they would do - the proposals are for them to be in place for the same length of term as the other type of non-execs and retire by rotation as per the other non-execs, thus re-appointment would need voted on at the AGM. On reflection I accept this is perhaps not clear from the web site.

I did check the site and I was unsure on that.. This is good.

seb

 

[Jac]

Accountability

Nobody can take anything away from the members.

Actually, they can. As a simple matter of logic, the more a membership's influence is eroded, the less likely it is they will be listened to.

They will always have ultimate control. Any changes will always be the members to make. I have never had a problem trusting the members. This is not an issue of trust it is an issue of at what point in the structure is it best to make that decision and how bureaucratic you want it to be. Ultimately the members always have the power to over rule the Board.

It is exactly an issue of "trust". If you have missed that, I think you have missed the point in Andrew's comments and (to be candid) I do not think he is alone in his thinking. For my own part, I'd rather have a more bureaucratic .uk registry than one where total control is exacted by a few on behalf of the many. That may not be the intention now, but it could be the result in 5 or 10 years when you (for instance) are no longer a board member. It could be the result because of a proposed change to the board structure which sees 3 appointed non-execs, 3 execs and 3 elected non-execs (reduced from 4). Simple mathematics dictate that 6 can always outvote 3, even in matters which may be critical to the majority of Nominet Members. It may never happen, but it might, and that's the dilemma.

Having thought about this, I am having great difficulty separating what is right for the Membership (because this is a membership issue) and what is right for the wider community. The fact is, neither you nor I nor anyone else, can predict with certainly, the kind of people we will have on the board in 5 or 10 years. To allow for a 6 versus 3 scenario now (weighted against the membership) may be a proposal too far. Personally, I want a .uk registry that is not only prepared to be accountable to its membership but is constituted to be so. As an aside, I want a Membership that is prepared to be accountable to the wider community and the two (in my mind) are inextricably linked. If the membership has lost its collective influence by being a minority on the Board, the matter may well be academic.

Lest we forget, Nominet was self-created; it is not an officially recognised public service or body but I think it is fair to say, it acts as a quasi-public service in overseeing what has become a national asset (the .uk domain).

History teaches that people who settle for 2nd best very often get it. So I would caution all Nominet Members to think through the ramifications of the 3 + 3 + 3 board composition.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[sneezycheese]

...Good common sense, on the money post Jac - Thanks!

 

[gordon]

So I would caution all Nominet Members to think through the ramifications of the 3 + 3 + 3 board composition.

I can understand why people have concerns on 3 + 3 + 3 but I have still not heard from anyone explaining why 3 + 3 + 3 can't be used with some form of "special status" for those that are directly elected?

I'd love to hear views...

I'm not arguing for any particular proposals but I am trying to get people to explain the problems they see so those can be addressed and so that people can submit their thoughts on it to the consultation.

Gordon

 

[Whois-Search]

I can understand why people have concerns on 3 + 3 + 3 but I have still not heard from anyone explaining why 3 + 3 + 3 can't be used with some form of "special status" for those that are directly elected?

The other members of the board would be:

3 executive directors
- Company Secretary
- Chief executive
- A Nominet Director

3 appointed non-executive directors
- Chairman
- A expert lawyer or accountant or business person
- Another expert or famous person

Are you really suggesting the 3 elected non-executive directors like yourself have more "power" than they would have?

I'd love to hear views...

I love that question Gordon I shall have to remember that one. Trouble is in the end people will wonder if your listening or not.

I'm not arguing for any particular proposals but I am trying to get people to explain the problems they see so those can be addressed and so that people can submit their thoughts on it to the consultation.

Ok here is a question for you .........

Let's say Nominet takes control of fees and reduces the £80 direct tag fee to say £20.

Then it improves registrants online with already proposed database improvements (you told me that at the DRS event). Won't more people go direct to Nominet instead of going to current registrars/members?

 

[gordon]

Are you really suggesting the 3 elected non-executive directors like yourself have more "power" than they would have?

I'm not actually suggesting anything. I am trying to determine if the objection to 3+3+3 is based upon. If it is based upon the ability to out vote then I wonder if there are objections to weighting voting within the board. I am asking questions at this stage, not giving solutions nor giving my opinion or the Board's opinion on the way forward.

I love that question Gordon I shall have to remember that one. Trouble is in the end people will wonder if your listening or not.

Andrew in saying that you clearly don't know me very well, so please don't make suggestions as to what I do.

Won't more people go direct to Nominet instead of going to current registrars/members?

Do you think it would make sense for someone to try to achieve that aim though? I don't understand why you think it would be a good thing to do from any point of view.

Gordon

 

[Whois-Search]

I'm not actually suggesting anything. I am trying to determine if the objection to 3+3+3 is based upon. If it is based upon the ability to out vote then I wonder if there are objections to weighting voting within the board. I am asking questions at this stage, not giving solutions nor giving my opinion or the Board's opinion on the way forward.

Ok. However having weighting voting where the 3 elected non-executives have more voting power than the CEO, Chairman, Company Secretary just isn't going to work? You have to have 3 + 6 elected non-executives for the membership to trust the process.

Andrew in saying that you clearly don't know me very well, so please don't make suggestions as to what I do.

I was referring to the tactic "answering a question with a question".

Do you think it would make sense for someone to try to achieve that aim though? I don't understand why you think it would be a good thing to do from any point of view.

Then please tell me why Nominet is spending money developing 'registrants online' instead of helping registrars develop their own systems? Also I can not think of another reason why Nominet wants control of registration fees i.e. £5 will you go up and £80 will come down.

 

[gordon]

Ok. However having weighting voting where the 3 elected non-executives have more voting power than the CEO, Chairman, Company Secretary just isn't going to work? You have to have 3 + 6 elected non-executives for the membership to trust the process.

I understand you are saying that but I've been trying to understand why you think that not just the fact you think it.

I was referring to the tactic "answering a question with a question".

Interesting interpretation of the section you quoted, you quoted the "I want to hear views" which was a response to Jac's statement not a question. I am here to hear views not to put my view or the boards view.

Then please tell me why Nominet is spending money developing 'registrants online' instead of helping registrars develop their own systems?

To deliver more efficiency on the existing processes that involve Nominet being involved in registrant contact.

Imagine that there may come a time when registrant transfers might be possible to do online, would that not be something you'd like to see?

Gordon

 

[Whois-Search]

I understand you are saying that but I've been trying to understand why you think that not just the fact you think it.

When your elected to the board enough members have put their trust in you (by voting for you) and you have worked hard to earn that trust. You know this yourself from your own election.

However when your appointed by Nominet, first of all you might not know any members at all and second you have not been round long enough to know what the members think and expect. Also Nominet are hardly likely to elect lets say a 'domainer' to the board are they? It will either be someone whos an expert in a particular field or someone who is neutral. This maybe good for corporate governance however members want someone they can relate to.

If you mention a name like Peter Gradwell you instantly think VOIP/ENUM ........ if you say Angus Hanton you think 'domainer' ..... if you say Jonathan Robinson you think 'COO of successful registrars'.

If a candidate is chosen that is Mr Smith a Company Lawyer from Oxford ...... what will people think?

Then from time to time you will get controversial candidates that Nominet chooses. A bit like Kieren McCarthy one minute standing for the ICANN board the next minute employed as "general manager of public participation". Was that job advertised?

Interesting interpretation of the section you quoted, you quoted the "I want to hear views" which was a response to Jac's statement not a question. I am here to hear views not to put my view or the boards view.

Ok I apologise for going off at a tangent.

To deliver more efficiency on the existing processes that involve Nominet being involved in registrant contact.

Imagine that there may come a time when registrant transfers might be possible to do online, would that not be something you'd like to see?

Yes of course I would like to see registrant transfers online so people don't have to bother posting Nominet a form: http://www.nominet.org.uk/registrants/maintain/transfer/

However what i'm talking about is if you make it easier and cheaper (reduce the £80) for people to have their own tag and manage their names online direct with Nominet then they will do so and your Registrars will lose business.

 

[seb]

Ok. However having weighting voting where the 3 elected non-executives have more voting power than the CEO, Chairman, Company Secretary just isn't going to work? You have to have 3 + 6 elected non-executives for the membership to trust the process.

If you're referring to a classic 'membership' issue and you'd expect the three non-exec to vote the same way then they'd all need 3 votes. I think in the normal course of business to give those non execs 3 votes would probably be counter intuitive.

As such, maybe some kind of elected non-executive 'veto' could apply (I'm speculating here.. not proposing..) if all three non execs (again assuming 3) vote in this way AND all choose to exercise the veto (since they may not feel strongly but all still vote against something which isn't sufficient for them to veto it).

Then please tell me why Nominet is spending money developing 'registrants online' instead of helping registrars develop their own systems? Also I can not think of another reason why Nominet wants control of registration fees i.e. £5 will you go up and £80 will come down.

Firstly, helping registrars develop systems is a bit questionable to the extent this is a competitive difference between registrars to an extent. I'm not saying it's not feasible, but I don't think it's linked to this issue anyway.

As for registrants online.. bear in mind that the registrant has a contract with Nominet. If you have a direct relationship online with the registrant you give them the ability to transfer domains without the costs Nominet would otherwise charge to do it manually. Looking at RegisterFly.. I'm very happy with how Nominet manages this relationship.

To be honest I don't think Nominet want more direct customers.. It's not their core business. I would certainly be opposed to Nominet taking a more active role in encouraging direct business for domain registrations.

seb

 

[seb]

A bit like Kieren McCarthy one minute standing for the ICANN board the next minute employed as "general manager of public participation". Was that job advertised?

I have no idea whether it was advertised but I doubt from my perception (and I may be wrong.. why not ask Kieren?) it had much to do with him standing for the board but more about his involvement in his involvement in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF Athens in particular) in pulling in comments from the web, etc.

I couldn't think of a better person for the job and I would have no concerns if that job hadn't been advertised.

However what i'm talking about is if you make it easier and cheaper (reduce the £80) for people to have their own tag and manage their names online direct with Nominet then they will do so and your Registrars will lose business.

Ok.. Elected non-execs get 3 votes each in setting of prices for any services?


seb

 

[gordon]

Yes of course I would like to see registrant transfers online so people don't have to bother posting Nominet a form: http://www.nominet.org.uk/registrants/maintain/transfer/

However what i'm talking about is if you make it easier and cheaper (reduce the £80) for people to have their own tag and manage their names online direct with Nominet then they will do so and your Registrars will lose business.

But what is the business incentive to do this? Have you considered how Nominet thrives because of its network of approximately 3000 people selling their product as an add on to other products that Nominet doesn't supply? There are few people that just want a domain name. They buy our product via a registrar because the registrar is giving them more.

The more the registrar community thrives the better it is for Nominet because the Registrar deals with the customer and supplies far more than Nominet could. It is in Nominet's interests to help the registrar community expand their business not take anything away.

Gordon

 

[Whois-Search]

But what is the business incentive to do this? Have you considered how Nominet thrives because of its network of approximately 3000 people selling their product as an add on to other products that Nominet doesn't supply? There are few people that just want a domain name. They buy our product via a registrar because the registrar is giving them more.

The more the registrar community thrives the better it is for Nominet because the Registrar deals with the customer and supplies far more than Nominet could. It is in Nominet's interests to help the registrar community expand their business not take anything away.

Gordon

So fees is another Article change so Nominet has the power to do something (taken away from the members) just like EGM2 ........ which you now say you are not going to do anyway?

 

[michaeltoth]

I'm not actually suggesting anything. I am trying to determine [what] is the objection to 3+3+3 is based upon.

Now Gordon, I am really getting a bit fed up with this ramble. I believe many people have said how they feel in many different ways. Here is mine


3 executive board members - biased to the executive board.
3 appionted board members - selected by the executive board so would probably be biased to the executive, not matter how you argue it Gordon.
3 elected board members - Probably with different points of view so you may only get one vote against when the membership actually disagrees.

At least the present setup allows for a more neutral based vote from all sides.

So the new setup would allow them to do what they want no matter what the membership says. They are doing that already, just wait and see what happens if this gets voted in.
I believe the membership showed comcern at the last vote, over the validity of the vote. I was told that a board member said that if they don't like the results test it out in court. and thats listening to the membership.

This is why there is distrust and why i believe this change and the prices change should not be voted in.

With my dealings with nominet, i know that ther try and hide things i beleive should be shown to thw wider community. I will not be supprised if Nominet send me a legal letter saying they are going to sue me over this outburst. I will let you know.

Finally, i good humour, with tongue in cheek, lets carry on playing hide and seek.
They hide the evidence and we seek it out.

Trust Trust Trust

Michael

 

[michaeltoth]

The more the registrar community thrives the better it is for Nominet

Gordon

I don't think that is completly true. Nominet needs nobody but the registrants.

We ALL, registrars and registrants, need Nominet.

Just think how easy it woulb be to have no trouble from members. Do what they want. Everyone registers online.

NO i feel very uncomortable about all this

Michael

 

[seb]

3 executive board members - biased to the executive board.
3 appionted board members - selected by the executive board so would probably be biased to the executive, not matter how you argue it Gordon.
3 elected board members - Probably with different points of view so you may only get one vote against when the membership actually disagrees.

Erm.. appointed members should be selected by the board (maybe through a use of a subcommittee to weed through applicants in initial stages).. I don't think Nominet is proposing for the executive to be selecting them?

http://www.nominet.org.uk/governance/consultation/appointedneds/

I'm not disagreeing with your concerns over the elected non-execs though.. I think there's a risk of diluting the membership's influence.

This is why there is distrust and why i believe this change and the prices change should not be voted in.

I think there are a lot of reasons for distrust from the events that have taken place over the last couple of years.. Different people have different reasons for it. What's needed is a way forward.

Btw.. If you are of the opinion that all price changes should be voted on, then it would be a good idea to put that forward in a response to the governance review consultation explicitly. If the members speak with a very strong voice to say this, any board that ignores them would be asking for a turbulent time.


seb