Governance Consultation

[Whois-Search]

Please could someone answer the following questions for me:


1. Why are EGM1 articles changes (defeated) being brought back as a "Governance Consultation"?

See: Board Composition

And Clive's EGM1 comments on "directors" at: What's wrong with the Nominet EGM Proposals

Which of the current board members have proposed this? Where has it come from? What was the point of EGM2?



2. In a "for profit" organisation I can understand the board being able to change fees. However in a not-for-profit company like Nominet that has so many members why does the board now want the ability to change fees again?

Fees

And see Clive's EGM1 comments on "pricing" at: What's wrong with the Nominet EGM Proposals

Will prices go up or go down if the board has the power to change them?

I believe we are talking about Nominet "stealth taxes" here:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/10983_Access_Limits_Policy.pdf

Will my DAC subscription suddlenly go from £25 to £££? Will I get charged for Whois 2?

How much will they charge for the 2007 waiting list service (proposal) ? Or a charity auctioned two letter .co.uk?

I doubt the board would actually change the £5 member price of a .uk domain without asking the members first?

Also they might of course put some prices down to keep us all happy:

Transfer

Some members might want prices to go up but let the members as a whole decide.



3. EGM3 will be a rehash of EGM1 leaving out the parts that were passed at
EGM2?

Also I know many members who feel we have to agree to it this time else
there will be no confidence in the board or we will just get an EGM4 ?

 

[scooter]

Quote: "The current process for fee change is slow and cumbersome, and would place us at a considerable disadvantage to any competitors"


What competition????? Nominet run co.uk, org.uk and me.uk There is NO competitor(s)!



.

 

[rob]

Just bumping this up as I am constructing my reply.

Currently my main concern is on the Fees section:

1. Fees

I agree with the principle of a board of a company setting the pricing of its service however Nominet is not a ‘normal’ company as it does not have a true competitor in the provision of .uk . Other services (enum etc) may have direct competitors however at the time of this consultation Nominet is solely the register maintainer for .uk and I am responding as such.

Due to registration periods currently standing at two years (with proposals for longer periods being discussed) the need for ‘swift’ pricing changes is in my view negligible.

I am concerned that opening direct control to the board may result in tiered pricing or member specific discounts – such changes could destroy other members business activities.

I do not support the proposed changes to fees as currently things are not truly broken and therefore do not require a fix.


Any thoughts?

I know lots of domainers replied (many at the last second with a template reply!) to the DRS consultation - but I would encourage people to reply to the current http://www.nic.uk/governance/consultation/respond/ consultation as well!

 

[seb]

Addressing the generality since I'm not a director and can't deal with the other bit.

1. Why are EGM1 articles changes (defeated) being brought back as a "Governance Consultation"?

The major complaint about EGM1 was the board giving us a "We propose X. Please say yay or nay".. and we says "nay" because we thought it was bad.

The consultation is "We propose X2.. We would like to hear your views on this. Is this good? If not, why not?"... and then the EGM2/3/4? are there to ratify a proposal based on that feedback.

EGM1 was bundling everything together as a "take it or leave it" option.

Will prices go up or go down if the board has the power to change them?

I would hope that depends on circumstances. I don't actually think what the price is matters that much (£4, £5 or £6) as long as it's the same to everyone.. although I see no current reason why it should rise if that's what you're worried about.

Will my DAC subscription suddlenly go from £25 to £££? Will I get charged for Whois 2?

Firstly bear in mind Nominet can already charge what it wants for DAC.. As it stands DAC seems very cheap to me.. (n.b. I am saying that as a DAC subscriber.)

How much will they charge for the 2007 waiting list service (proposal) ? Or a charity auctioned two letter .co.uk?

You make it sound like something has been decided.. I very much doubt that is the case.. I don't know if WLS has enough support.. Back in 2003 when there was a consultation on this, I certainly felt there was not enough of a case for a Nominet operated WLS. I'm still unsure. I wouldn't want to see a DRS for WLS slots etc.. it's just adding a layer that's useless and wastes everyone's money.

Also they might of course put some prices down to keep us all happy: Transfer

If this can be done reliably online with less/no manual involvement it should definitely go down as the costs go down.

Some members might want prices to go up but let the members as a whole decide.

I don't think anyone has any strong beliefs transfer charges should go up to be honest.. I think there will be some who think the registration/renewal prices should.. Many of them hold this belief on the basis all the good names are gone.. they don't realise all the really good names they would really want would be gone at £5, £50 and even £500. Ok there would be less speculation at lower end maybe..

3. EGM3 will be a rehash of EGM1 leaving out the parts that were passed at
EGM2?

As I keep saying.. if you don't like what you are being asked about, SPEAK UP.. It's no use complaining afterwards.. now you have a chance.. As I have said, if there is widespread opposition against specific changes, any board would be quite silly to ignore the members.. since another EGM defeat would be even more embarassing.

Also I know many members who feel we have to agree to it this time else there will be no confidence in the board or we will just get an EGM4 ?

If they feel that the board is making a fundementally wrong decision, then surely it would be in their interests to have a no confidence declaration? If you don't believe the board can run the company, you replace it.


seb

 

[seb]

I am concerned that opening direct control to the board may result in tiered pricing or member specific discounts – such changes could destroy other members business activities.

Have you considered putting in a response which states that the pricing should be under the board's control however pricing should be the same to all members? (or what you said + "If control is to be given to the board, it should be conditional on..")

I don't personally see large members would benefit hugely from a cheaper price than smaller members.. They already get the majority of registrations because it's a marketing game more than anything. If there is a shown case that small members bring more workload to Nominet (and from what I've heard over the last few years, the workload isn't about large and small.. but more specific members that cause issues [no I don't know who..]) then there may need to be an increase in say tagholding fees.. to cover whatever those costs are (I know my use of Nominet support is very limited so they can't make it ridiculous just because of a few bad apples if that's the case)


seb

 

[Whois-Search]

Seb this is an old thread from 07-02-2007, 02:56 AM and one of the first posts I made about this.

You can learn a lot in a month as you know. In fact I learn't a lot today after meeting two influential members.

However I still haven't worked out WHY Nominet wants control of fees and the board...........

 

[seb]

Seb this is an old thread from 07-02-2007, 02:56 AM and one of the first posts I made about this

Urgh.. apologies.. It appeared as new (bold I think means new.. sorry not used to this forum).. Must have just missed it before.

However I still haven't worked out WHY Nominet wants control of fees and the board...........

Well considering they want it, they will have to explain it.. My basis for my own view is I think tieing the board's hands unduly is potentially problematic.. that said I think there are ways around some of the concerns which still allow sufficient room but maintaining membership control (speeding up voting, allowing changes to price but not structure of price [to keep a level playing field], etc.)

seb

 

[Whois-Search]

Well considering they want it, they will have to explain it.. My basis for my own view is I think tieing the board's hands unduly is potentially problematic.. that said I think there are ways around some of the concerns which still allow sufficient room but maintaining membership control (speeding up voting, allowing changes to price but not structure of price [to keep a level playing field], etc.)

And untying the boards hands completely (so they can do anything) isn't problematic?

What gets me about this is..... lets say the board did have control over registration prices. Then they raised the £5 fee to £10...... they would ruin the business model of www.1and1.co.uk over night - won't be very happy would they? They must have spent thousands advertising £1.99 domains, they would sue Nominet the next day or call for a vote of no confidence.

Also what about on the other hand giving the largest members a discount on bulk orders? www.1and1.co.uk could start doing them for 99p a year? What would this to do the small members?

Therefore Nominet cannot touch pricing without asking the membership first, so they might as well leave the 75% in the articles!

 

[seb]

And untying the boards hands completely (so they can do anything) isn't problematic?

No.. it's open to its own set of problems.

What gets me about this is..... lets say the board did have control over registration prices. Then they raised the £5 fee to £10...... they would ruin the business model of www.1and1.co.uk over night

I very much doubt it. If .uk domains cost more, 1&1 would charge more.. where else would you go? The only possibility is .com or other TLDs.. and that's why Nominet in my view does operate in a competitive market.

I'm not suggesting raising the fees here btw.. just I think your analysis of the model is not right.

They must have spent thousands advertising £1.99 domains, they would sue Nominet the next day or call for a vote of no confidence.

They could call for a vote of no confidence.. If they did do this, I would hope the board would be able to give a very good reason as to why they raised the price, and the membership would then want to back the board. If not, well frankly the board deserves the outcome.

Also what about on the other hand giving the largest members a discount on bulk orders? 1and1 could start doing them for 99p a year? What would this to do the small members?

I'm against this idea. I'm open to someone persuading me why this should happen. I think Nominet encourages a thriving market and the big guys will still be big because they have other marketing tools and mixes they use to achieve it. I don't think the wholesale price being the same threatens them to be honest.. This is why I have no major problem with the fee 'structure' being harder to change than the fee itself.

If it's the case that Nominet is incurring more costs from smaller members, then I have no issue with a fee being charges for tags to recover this cost. I see no reason why large members should subsidise small ones. That said, I think we'd need to make sure whatever they proposed was fair and didn't bundle clueless and clueful members together if it was an issue relating to understanding of systems etc.

Therefore Nominet cannot touch pricing without asking the membership first, so they might as well leave the 75% in the articles!

..and if enough members unambiguously say that, they will have a hard time changing it. I think there are issues relating to timescales which AT LEAST need to be resolved.. I'm also slightly concerned about the possibility the membership could force the company into troubles.. I think this needs looking at.. I don't see why safeguards to address concerns such as yours should not be put in.

seb

 

[rob]

Have you considered putting in a response which states that the pricing should be under the board's control however pricing should be the same to all members? (or what you said + "If control is to be given to the board, it should be conditional on..")

fair point


any other thoughts apart from WS / Seb ?