27 Days to save Drop Catching - Model A

Guys,

The deadline for replying to Nominet's consultation on dropping domains is Friday 14th August, with a web discussion on the Tuesday of that week. And then that's it... over to Nominet to decide.

We already have an 8-page thread on the news release, but that's more of a reaction thread, with plenty of negativity about Nominet (which anyone can understand in the circumstances), but sadly also quite a lot of infighting and name-calling which is totally unproductive.

I watched the way recently this community worked collaboratively with Lazarus to help develop flip.uk, and that was really productive, so I am wondering if the same could be done with people working together to develop one or more models to present to Nominet.

To achieve that, and bearing in mind you only have a 27 day window of opportunity to do this, what I am proposing in this thread is that I take an interventionist role as a (newbie) moderator and moderate out negative attacks on other members (which are irrelevant to Nominet) and you work together to build models that could actually work (you probably won't all agree on one single model, and that's fine of course).

But frankly, if there's one time for people here to work together, it's probably now - constructively, and with clear thinking.

Now you may understandably argue that Nominet has already decided on an outcome and all this consultation is window-dressing. That could of course be the case, but I'm not so sure. I've had several conversations by phone and video link and email with Nominet people over the past 7 months, and my impression is that they really are undecided and want mature advice, drawing on the experience of people who use and understand the processes.

I suspect the auction model may have a lead with them, simply because it's not that complex or hard to implement. If you like, it's the easy way out, once you conclude that the system as it was, was unravelling out of control. But I'm not convinced they have decided on outcomes yet, and what's really needed to protect people's livelihoods is methodology about how to make a workable process where the rules can be enforced.

I can't contribute a great deal, except to moderate out personal abuse (which is wholly unconstructive), because I am not a 'catcher' myself. I buy domains off catchers - off several of you here. And besides, I want to listen and learn.

There seem to be two starting points, if you discount the auction:

Model A: You take the proposal that Nominet has made for a future name catching system, and you adjust it, with reasoned and convincing arguments, to a fairer and workable model.

Model B: You present really well-developed methodology for keeping the present system in a re-worked set of rules and parameters, which MUST be enforceable, otherwise there'll be no interest in using it. Nominet have gone past that point. It's pretty obvious that they know (as things stand) that the status quo will still be ridden roughshot over.

Model C: You review Nominet's proposed auction model, and consider any adjustments, that contribute to a working auction. [added after people pointed out I shouldn't have omitted this option]

This thread is for Model A - revising or fine tuning Nominet's actual proposal. Anyone want to contribute thoughts?

 

OK, this isn't going to be popular. I think an auction model is better than a dropcatching one.


[Edit: actually, I realise I didn't make myself clear, and also by 'discounting' the auction model I wasn't being even-handed, so I've given the auction option its own Model C thread for people to work on *constructively*. I'm not moderating your comment out Martin, but everyone please understand now that this specific thread is only for people to develop Nominet's proposed new system for drop-catching. The Model B thread is for retaining the present system perhaps with tighter controls. And the Model C thread is for those who want to work on the auction model and promote it in the consultations.]

 

Susannah - moderating your own thread because you don't like a response is not a very positive thing for a mod to be doing, particularly one who wants to be a Nominet NED.

I'll post it again here: "OK, this isn't going to be popular. I think an auction model is better than a dropcatching one."

 

...

 

"There seem to be two starting points, if you discount the auction:

Model A: You take the proposal that Nominet has made, and you adjust it, with reasoned and convincing arguments, to a fairer and workable model.

Model B: You present really well-developed methodology for keeping the present system in a re-worked set of rules and parameters, which MUST be enforceable, otherwise there'll be no interest in using it. Nominet have gone past that point. It's pretty obvious that they know (as things stand) that the status quo will still be ridden roughshot over.

This thread is for Model A - revising or fine tuning Nominet's actual proposal. Anyone want to contribute thoughts?"

Just to be clear, Martin, this thread is specifically NOT about the auction option - but so as not to exclude your view, I will start and Option C thread, specifically for people who want to develop or promote the auction model.

Perhaps I need to explain what I'm trying to do...

I’m not going to be an advocate or an opponent of any idea in these threads. I think, if I am going to be a Director, I need to show members the respect to listen. I think I should be a listener, and to be honest, there are arguments I think are quite complicated and need to be detailed, studied, and reflected on. But by the time I am a Director, assuming I am, this will all still be unfolding. When there was no prospect of me being anyone except myself, I think I had a freedom to fire off my own ideas. But moving into a new and representative role, I think I take responsibility to listen more and really try to see what people are saying.

Being here on Acorn, I think I am in a prime position to listen. I’ve had a chance to weigh people up, to do business with people, to follow debates. What other Nominet Director candidate is here listening?

Where are they? They may pop in to ask for your vote – I don’t know. But they’re not engaged… least of all the sitting director, the Namesco employee, who I don’t think has commented here once these past three years. At least I put myself in the firing line.

But I'll set up a Model C for the auction option, and then I hope you will trust that I am not trying to close you down. I'm really not.

 

...

 

Okay, I've set up a Model C thread here specifically and only for discussion on how the auction model could work, and I apologise for not being sufficiently clear.

27 days to go... if you feel strongly and want your views represented and developed... might want to get to work!

Now can we return to the subject of this specific thread, which discounts the auction model, because that is now covered in the equivalent Model C thread:

Model A: You take the proposal that Nominet has made for a future name catching system, and you adjust it, with reasoned and convincing arguments, to a fairer and workable model.

 

...

 

Decision has already been made, wish they would just announce it

 

Please provide proof for your statement. The last consultation was about publishing a drop list, they haven't done that, and have brought about another consultation.

Back to the original topic, how about restricting drop catching access to members that are Channel Partners or Accredited Channel Partners? I'm excluding Self Managed Tags, as that appears the type of tag that has caused issues, due to those tags not having published information, and are effectively anonymous. Apologies for those Self Managed Tags that disagree, but getting a Channel Partner Tag isn't a barrier, and is relatively easy.

 

...

 

Thank you super-whois, we finally have an interesting suggestion and starting point.

 

This statement is incorrect, DL might have been the sale platform, but some of those names were caught by people unconnected with Denys' hosted catching.

Can you please identify yourself, and stop interrupting this thread.

 

...

Siusaidh edit: [I think we all know about the money and the threat, but that doesn't progress how to develop this model, which is the purpose of this thread... honestly, I think we'll leave this out, but you're very welcome to pitch this on the long 8-page thread with your other comments.]

 

...

Siusaidh edit: [So how are you going to build this Model, because that is what this thread is about. It's not a debate about 'should we shouldn't we' - it's about 'How?' Let those who want to engage with this 'How?' get on with doing so, but by all means take your fair points to the general thread please]

 

Super-whois, if Nominet followed through with this suggestion, do you think this would reduce the scope for unchallenged abuse, and if so, in what way? I'm trying to ask the obvious, maybe stupid, devil's advocate question: what would be to stop friends and family of a master-cheater individually each migrating from Self-Managed? I've a feeling you must have thought this through with a rationale I'm missing, so I'm trying to understand and check this out.

 

This is what I keep saying, its impossible to stop. Do you think [people] will just get back on their donkeys and vanish into the sunset, never to catch a UK domain again?

If anything cheating will get worse if the tech bugs are fixed. Then it really will be a mess. It'll be an arms race of who can get the most bodies to sign up for new accounts. You can put hurdles in place but you'll never be able to prove that some of the accounts are my grandmother who has a PC but can't even manage to get on Facebook without phoning me.

 

These threads are becoming impossibly difficult to follow. Can I suggest that the moderator stops editing individual posts made by other and just quotes them in reply. I perhaps think at this point, moderator privilege isn't appropriate for someone looking for a NED position when this forum is quite crucial in the voting....not that I have concerns with your ability to efficiently moderate this forum.

 

Okay Derek, that's made the point sufficiently, so to avoid repetition let's move on and see if people can think of safeguards, under super-whois's proposal or a similar. Going to be pedantic in my moderation here, because super-whois is using the thread the way it was designed. You've made the point that you think it won't work, and I'll keep your colourfully made point in (though can we leave out the idea it's all about certain foreign nationalities, it's not). Now please engage with how we make the Model work, of kindly, please, hush!

 

They’re still free to acquire. Requirements for different tag types here. Channel Partner additional requirements:

Maintain a website, accessible to the public that provides:

• Address
• Telephone number
• Customer Service commitments detailing expected response times and how long it usually takes to resolve issues
• Email contact point for abuse complaints

Acknowledge receipt of customer contacts or complaints within 5 working days

Ensure your customers are aware of:

• Charges for registration, renewal, and maintenance
• Any ongoing charges
• Key terms of the contract
• Your policy on renewal and expiry of domain names

I’d anticipate most involved already could meet the above fairly easily using a service address and a one page web site so would apply for one in addition to any self managed tag they already had. It’s not any sort of barrier to prevent registrar stacking.