Deadline approaching fast 12-09

[Stephen]

The last date to add your feedback to the Nominet consultation on the new Registrar agreement is approaching fast, last entry 12th September.

http://www.nominet.org.uk/how-participate/policy-development/current-policy-discussions-and-consultations/review-uk-registrar

Whether you are concerned about the large registrars getting the dropped domains, creating different classes of registrars or some other aspect of the proposal, you need to add your feedback soon.

 

[Stephen]

points for and against ?

Can anybody provide some quick links about the points for and against the new UK registrar agreement,
as I would like to add my feedback but prefer to see some views first, to help make a more informed input.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

I cannot point to anything public, Nominet have cleverly kept this bigger-for-the-members-than-direct.uk proposal under the radar by introducing it at the same time as direct.uk. Basically, it is curtains for domainers and I am surprised that nobody really gives a toss about it. Here are my summary points which are then reasoned in a more boring digest of the whole proposal. If anybody wants a real windup, then read pages 11-16 of the revised registrar agreement (the bottom-line) http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/DraftrevisedRegistrarAgreement2013Clean.docx.

1. Nominet’s constitution is too fragile and its role in the world too poorly defined for it for it to now become a regulator of its membership and the manager of numerous levels membership services.

2. Nominet has a poor understanding of the realities of commercial business, particularly those of small businesses, the majority of its members. Therefore, its proposals are fraught with naïve expectations about what is reasonable to ask of its membership in fulfilling the accreditation requirements.

3. Nominet’s stated at round-table events that they were interested in the members views about ‘what to charge’ for the new membership levels. This summarises Nominet’s perverse and embarrassing position of having too much money, and simply charging for the sake of it, which is obviously not in the best interests of its membership.

4. Nominet has a ‘trust deficit’, which was identified at the most recent AGM. Under that cloud, it cannot possibly introduce measures that claim to underpin the trust in the organisation, or empower its board members to have access to the private commercial information of others, or to take sanctions against its members. Some of the board members are also competitors of the wider membership, running some of its largest businesses, in a dual role as Nominet’s biggest customers.

5. As demonstrated with ICAAN’s history of running a compliance team it is extremely difficult for an organisation to regulate at arm’s length its own customers and the source of its income. This is particularly the case where, as at Nominet there is a high concentration of market power in the hands of very few customers. To me it is inconceivable that Nominet could ever terminate the services of its top two members providing 48% of its income. This is a recipe for favours between friends (the largest members attend exclusive dinners laid on by Nominet), and for Nominet to bully the smaller members.

A simple question: are you happy to pay £1000 for benefits you currently enjoy (give or take some extras) and the right for Nominet to inspect your accounts and records, and no recognition for the credit you have built up with Nominet over the years?

 

[Stephen]

Extra Registrar cost?

A simple question: are you happy to pay £1000 for benefits you currently enjoy (give or take some extras) and the right for Nominet to inspect your accounts and records, and no recognition for the credit you have built up with Nominet over the years?

Thanks for post, can you please explain how I might incur those £1,000 p.a. costs.

I think I pay £100 pa as Registrar and £25 pa for DAC access at the moment.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

No I can't. At the roundtable one of the exec's said they were thinking of charging under £1000, so let's say £999 to be prudent for now. And they seemed to agree that membership fess would be pretty meaningless in the light of that. I don't know if that was annual or one-off. We have no information, they could go like ICANN and make it £7k plus £70k in the bank for all I know. It really does seem to be on the back of an envelope. The trouble is, once this consultation has gone through that will be it, no vote, nothing. While they've got us all panicking about direct.uk in the background the membership agreement is being rewritten to suit Thomas and Dickie et al. under our very noses.

 

[Stephen]

expiry.org.uk

Although I did get to the end of the London Registrar round table (10th July) and engaged in the expiry debate (which was far to short) at the time I requested that the "Chair" move matters on, as he was letting all sorts of speeches go on other issues which did not seem to make a point or ask any questions.

Anyway, I have been busy with .uk but now looking at the registrar agreement and I'm surprised not see more Acorn threads, suggested feedback or issues being raised about the new registrar agreement.

I note that Andrew Bennett's website http://expiry.org.uk/ (thanks by the way) deals with one aspect and he has received some support, but as it effects so many, I would have thought there would be more action, maybe even a banner at domainlore.co.uk pointing to Expiry.org.uk?

Well I'm off to read it all and see if I can put together a response to Nominet.

 

[AssetDomains]

Maybe the lack of discussion on this consultation is because this is probably a done deal.
Can you really see the board not voting in an anti domainer way. I cant not as the only negative feedback will likely come from this community.

There's no point trying to get the press involved will they really care if Nominet are about to put an end to this aspect of domain speculating the press just see us as squatters don't they.

There's a webinar I see on the 6th 11.00am – 12.30pm regarding the consultation.
http://www.nominet.org.uk/registration-form
Maybe worth signing up to try and gauge what's what I suppose

 

[Stephen]

auction at the registrar ?

Maybe the lack of discussion on this consultation is because this is probably a done deal.
Can you really see the board not voting in an anti domainer way. I cant not as the only negative feedback will likely come from this community.

There's no point trying to get the press involved will they really care if Nominet are about to put an end to this aspect of domain speculating the press just see us as squatters don't they.

There's a webinar I see on the 6th 11.00am – 12.30pm regarding the consultation.
http://www.nominet.org.uk/registration-form
Maybe worth signing up to try and gauge what's what I suppose

Thanks will ensure I'm signed up for webinar.

I agree about the press on this issue.

However I think that the person who goes to a drop catcher now for a fixed fee with no fee no win,
will not be so pleased when they find themselves not with that option but having to go to an auction at the registrar that held it.

But is that person, Nominet's concern, I think it should be.

 

[Edwin]

There's no point trying to get the press involved will they really care if Nominet are about to put an end to this aspect of domain speculating the press just see us as squatters don't they.

I agree. It's just one very small segment of Nominet's overall registrant base that will be affected, perhaps a few hundred individuals and companies in total out of several million. And given that the changes are likely to finally put the nail in the coffin of drop catching that some at Nominet (and elsewhere) have been trying to hammer home for over a decade, I don't expect to hear much in the way of dissent.

With the direct.uk deadline just 11 days later (and affecting potentially millions of registrants) it's worth thinking very carefully about which battles to pick.

BTW, Lucien, in your summary you've said almost nothing at all about the Registrant proposal itself, only about the background to the consultation/decision-making process. It's relevant, but tangential, since people are being asked to submit their ideas and objections to the actual proposal, not to Nominet's approach to the whole thing.

(This is incidentally the same problem that direct.uk seems to suffer from i.e. there are two sets of battle lines being drawn up - one about the process and one about the result of that process).

 

[Edwin]

However I think that the person who goes to a drop catcher now for a fixed fee with no fee no win,
will not be so pleased when they find themselves not with that option but having to go to an auction at the registrar that held it.

Those who use drop catchers may make up a majority of Acorn's membership, but they also make up a very very very small part of Nominet's overall registrant base. I doubt more than a thousand people have ever used a drop catcher (and probably much less than that!)

It's a critical issue for many people on here, granted, but let's try not to make a mountain out of a localised molehill. Not when there's a real mountain (direct.uk) looming just beyond.

 

[Stephen]

start soon?

With the direct.uk deadline just 11 days later (and affecting potentially millions of registrants) it's worth thinking very carefully about which battles to pick.

.uk deadline 23rd September - Registrar deadline 12th September

Agree about the importance of .uk and accept the point of the low number it will effect but I still think it is worth pointing an objection to Nominet on the registrar agreement, for those that do feel that Nominet should not favour the large registrars in the expiry policy.

Also one reason why the charges might be so high for .uk, is in that Nominet under the new agreement may well be more active in spending a large portion of it on "Marketing Support" to the main registrars. I have been told that is the norm with other gTLD's.

I have not seen much activity of a battle on .uk, does that mean it is going to start soon?

 

[Stephen]

consider voicing their opinion

Those who use drop catchers may make up a majority of Acorn's membership, but they also make up a very very very small part of Nominet's overall registrant base. I doubt more than a thousand people have ever used a drop catcher (and probably much less than that!)

It's a critical issue for many people on here, granted, but let's try not to make a mountain out of a localised molehill. Not when there's a real mountain (direct.uk) looming just beyond.

Not trying to make a mountain just trying to get those that object to it, to consider voicing their opinion to Nominet in their registrar consultation.

What is being done at Acorn about the real mountain (.uk)?

 

[Lucien Taylor]

BTW, Lucien, in your summary you've said almost nothing at all about the Registrant proposal itself, only about the background to the consultation/decision-making process. It's relevant, but tangential, since people are being asked to submit their ideas and objections to the actual proposal, not to Nominet's approach to the whole thing.

(This is incidentally the same problem that direct.uk seems to suffer from i.e. there are two sets of battle lines being drawn up - one about the process and one about the result of that process).

Absolutely, fair point. It is a summary and I trawl through the draft agreement clause by clause in my full response which I am happy to share - for those who wouldn't rather cut their arm off. I think the background decision making process is critical in both proposals. Particularly given the vacuum of business rationale, less so with this case than direct.uk - but bad things often follow when the consultation is not done right (IPV6, WHOis?) and we are stuck with things that nobody actually wanted.

 

[Stephen]

Both viewpoints are essential

(This is incidentally the same problem that direct.uk seems to suffer from i.e. there are two sets of battle lines being drawn up - one about the process and one about the result of that process).

Always been both.

There has always been views of the process (v1 & V2 .uk) and what information Nominet has taken into account in its proposal, what research they have not done and what they have not explained.

See eco Atlas Report 2013

http://numbers.eco.de/wp-content/blogs.dir/55/files/2013/06/20130611-RegistrarAtlas2013_eng_komprimiert.pdf


Quotes like this:

According to the study, more than 80 percent of the participating German registrars do not expect the new Top Level Domains (TLDs)
to cause a drop in domain registrations under the national country code .de.

also lots of interesting areas covered;
Q. WILL YOU CONDUCT SPECIAL MARKETING ACTIVITIES FOR THE LAUNCH OF NEW GTLDS?

Uk answer from participants - only 33% said they would undertake any special marketing. (not very representative only 3 uk responses).

The information can often show the idea is based on a false premise and should be reviewed and possibly changed for that reason.


In addition to the points of what will happen if proposal goes ahead and how a post.uk world will like and to highlight unconsidered areas that have not been addressed by the proposal.



Both viewpoints are essential for a .uk response or battle, so I don't see it is problem.

 

[Edwin]

Both viewpoints are essential for a .uk response or battle, so I don't see it is problem.

Except that Nominet are only going to focus on comments relating to the idea. They have no particular interest in (or need for) detailed analysis of the way the consultation itself was conducted because that's not what's being asked for. It's like somebody submitting a hunk of beef to a vegetarian pot luck dinner - it's unarguably food, but nobody's going to eat it.

So if somebody's submitting a response with 50% devoted to the actual topic and 50% to the unfairness of the process behind the topic, they're significantly diluting the impact of the meaningful 50% of their comments which address the good points and the bad points of direct.uk as conceived by Nominet.

I'm referring to actual consultation submissions here, not to additional communications meant for other channels (e.g. the press, forums, blog posts etc.) where bringing up the flaws in the process itself is perfectly legitimate.

 

[Edwin]

Remember, regardless of how anyone feels about the consultation itself, it WILL close on 23 September, and the responses WILL be aggregated and used (in some way) in Nominet's decision process. There is nothing you can say or do to derail that side of things.

What you can, perhaps, influence to a limited degree (each person is just one voice amongst many) is what that summary report says about each of the aspects of launching (or not launching) direct.uk.

Direct.uk (in the abstract) is either a good idea or a bad idea (or some shade of grey in between).

Beyond that, Direct.uk as Nominet sees it is either a good idea or a bad idea (or some shade of grey in between).

If it's a bad idea, but redeemable, then HOW should it be changed so that it becomes "better"?

If it's irredeemably bad, then WHY is it bad? (the arguments have to be against the proposal, not against the process. Bad processes can still produce good ideas, so arguing that the idea is flawed because the process was flawed won't get you very far)

Those are the sorts of considerations that should shape your consultation response. By the time the Nominet Exec team read the summary, the consultation itself is history, over and done with, so the fact that this group or that group were inadequately represented or under-contacted is (unfortunately) water under the bridge come decision time.

Again, I am strictly and narrowly referring to actual consultation responses here.

 

[Stephen]

legitimate answer

Except that Nominet are only going to focus on comments relating to the idea. They have no particular interest in (or need for) detailed analysis of the way the consultation itself was conducted because that's not what's being asked for. It's like somebody submitting a hunk of beef to a vegetarian pot luck dinner - it's unarguably food, but nobody's going to eat it.

So if somebody's submitting a response with 50% devoted to the actual topic and 50% to the unfairness of the process behind the topic, they're significantly diluting the impact of the meaningful 50% of their comments.

I'm referring to actual consultation submissions here, not to additional communications meant for other channels (e.g. the press, forums, blog posts etc.) where bringing up the flaws in the process itself is perfectly legitimate.

Point taken, although it will depend on many other factors including how well it is put together, the strength of the points, the volume of points and how many people submit feedback in that manner.

For question 4.b Please tell us your reasons why.

If you take your point it would not be worth stating Nominet have not proven a need for .uk and they refuse to provide a case for .uk despite the numerous requests to do so.

I consider the above to be a legitimate answer.

In addition, this time the .uk consultation feedback is going to be a public record
and therefore all published content stands a chance of modifying Nominet behaviour in its final .uk decision.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

So if somebody's submitting a response with 50% devoted to the actual topic and 50% to the unfairness of the process behind the topic, they're significantly diluting the impact of the meaningful 50% of their comments which address the good points and the bad points of direct.uk as conceived by Nominet.

No -

My overall response is negative, and I do not support the proposal. Therefore, if anybody is going to summarise my response I would expect them to reflect that, not discount my response because they do not like my arguments, or do not agree with them.

I think the proposal is flawed because it is so obviously something that Thomas and Dickie want. However, I cannot guarantee that, that is my personal speculation and opinion. So, it is safer and more reasonable to focus my criticism upon the consultation process. I do not believe that the wider membership want this, there is a very thin business case - to improve data quality (although perversely there will be less incentive for ‘lower’ tags to improve their data quality) and there have been no calls for change. Also, it orphans the status of members, currently benefiting by discounts. So, this is a flawed proposal not backed up by a proper qualitative consultation process. Run it properly and I might change my mind. I refuse to engage in the minutiae of a proposal that is being forced upon us just because it is inevitable and there is nothing I can do about it. My response is reasonable.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

What you can, perhaps, influence to a limited degree (each person is just one voice amongst many) is what that summary report says about each of the aspects of launching (or not launching) direct.uk.

...

Again, I am strictly and narrowly referring to actual consultation responses here.

Sorry Edwin, I just missed this and agree with much of what you say here. However, my issue is not the unfairness of the consultation process. It is simply that they have not done it properly, and it is mandatory. The PM has just consulted his fellows at Parliament about his proposal to go to war, and they said no. Tony Blair went to war on a false pretext, no business case (made up Weapons of MD evidence). These things come back to bite you.

 

[Stephen]

just the way it is

Remember, regardless of how anyone feels about the consultation itself, it WILL close on 23 September, and the responses WILL be aggregated and used (in some way) in Nominet's decision process. There is nothing you can say or do to derail that side of things.

It is a fact; and no I can not change that, I have never knowingly tried to derail it, as that would be a pointless waste of effort. I have tried to engage more people in the .uk process.

What you can, perhaps, influence to a limited degree (each person is just one voice amongst many) is what that summary report says about each of the aspects of launching (or not launching) direct.uk.

Direct.uk (in the abstract) is either a good idea or a bad idea (or some shade of grey in between).

Beyond that, Direct.uk as Nominet sees it is either a good idea or a bad idea (or some shade of grey in between).

If it's a bad idea, but redeemable, then HOW should it be changed so that it becomes "better"?

If it's irredeemably bad, then WHY is it bad? (the arguments have to be against the proposal, not against the process. Bad processes can still produce good ideas, so arguing that the idea is flawed because the process was flawed won't get you very far)

Those are the sorts of considerations that should shape your consultation response. By the time the Nominet Exec team read the summary, the consultation itself is history, over and done with, so the fact that this group or that group were inadequately represented or under-contacted is (unfortunately) water under the bridge come decision time.

Again, I am strictly and narrowly referring to actual consultation responses here.

Thank you. Your points are well made.

Saying "YES to .uk" is all the pro .uk group have to do, as that will be in the summary big and bold but to make a No or alternative case then lots of reason and some evidence is required but I suppose that is just the way it is!

However if their is to be a version 3 .uk consultation, then observations on how and what Nominet might do differently may be helpful to them and they may be taken into account.

From version 1 .uk feedback, at least they are going to publish the feedback this time, so maybe it is worth making some observations about the process, in fact this time there is a specific question at the end to do just that.