[nom-steer] in steep decline?

aZooZa · Mar 19, 2009

I think I have probably made my last post on nom-steer. I am just pondering as to why this might be. I have self-interests in Nominet policy. Yes, I'm a 'secondary market' operator. Maybe that's it. Perhaps we're still regarded as 'squatters' which is an argument long dry.

I have always declared my interests. Andrew (whois-search) has been a staunch supporter; Graeme also. Rob a little guarded perhaps.

I just hate bullshit. That 'major domo 'list reads like a Mensa thread gone even further than the worst self-indulgence imaginable.

As a member/registrar, I now want to know what DAC policies are going to ensue, and how that affects my business and that of my clients. There was a retraction lately of a completely unworkable policy. So where are we now?

Maybe I should write to Mandelson quite soon as he may soon be the guardian of my interests.

Nominet, you know I have put forward my case in all possible manner. Now is the time for answers.

</rant>

Dale

rob · Mar 19, 2009

Boo - I dont think I am guarded

I do try my best to see as many angles as possible (when on PAB thats the job) and in the case of the DAC , I have been quite vocal in trying to get Nominet to enforce their T&C's to shut down the likes of domaintools who cache and then sell the whois data.

Its tricky to go after that type of company while providing members with the tools to do such a thing if they wished.

Obviously the DAC is there for a reason, and it needs fairly balanced limits in place to make it usable without killing off legit business models of members.

Regarding yesterdays meeting I feel it was quite positive for 'domainer' users of the DAC, I do not know what DAC policies are going to ensue however I am hoping it will be fair to all and as always am confident Nominet are open to feedback on the matter.

...which brings me on to people taking an active interest! I hope people have contacted Nominet with their concerns and explained how it affects them and ideally if they can give suggestions on how to improve the current proposals.

So where are we now?

Nom have a problem they are trying to fix, and are realising the suggested method would negatively affect members so are 'reviewing the recently announced changes'

Not an answer I know, but as feedback is still being listened to , its too early to expect anything firm.

GreyWing · Mar 19, 2009

rob said:
Boo - I dont think I am guarded

and I thought I was being guarded. I have to rewrite each post 4-5 times so that I don't come across as being harsh.

Unfortunately I haven't got all day and have to press submit sooner or later.

I'm optimistic from what I have heard from certain people that nominet genuinely didn't realise what was going on. That's not to say the person who thought of it didn't know what they were doing, but they may have been able to get it passed certain other people who are more aware now.

That's my thoughts on it.

aZooZa · Mar 19, 2009

rob said:
Boo - I dont think I am guarded

I do try my best to see as many angles as possible (when on PAB thats the job) and in the case of the DAC , I have been quite vocal in trying to get Nominet to enforce their T&C's to shut down the likes of domaintools who cache and then sell the whois data.

Its tricky to go after that type of company while providing members with the tools to do such a thing if they wished.

Obviously the DAC is there for a reason, and it needs fairly balanced limits in place to make it usable without killing off legit business models of members.

Regarding yesterdays meeting I feel it was quite positive for 'domainer' users of the DAC, I do not know what DAC policies are going to ensue however I am hoping it will be fair to all and as always am confident Nominet are open to feedback on the matter.

...which brings me on to people taking an active interest! I hope people have contacted Nominet with their concerns and explained how it affects them and ideally if they can give suggestions on how to improve the current proposals.

Nom have a problem they are trying to fix, and are realising the suggested method would negatively affect members so are 'reviewing the recently announced changes'

Not an answer I know, but as feedback is still being listened to , its too early to expect anything firm.

I have no problem with what you have said Rob. However, an early resolution would be reasonable; i.e. less than two months away as I understand it be currently, which is quite unreasonable for the reasons I posted on nom-steer. How can a meeting be "positive" when there are no relevant resolutions? Or do you think there will be a sooner Nominet retraction/reinforcement?

rob · Mar 19, 2009

aZooZa said:
How can a meeting be "positive" when there are no relevant resolutions? Or do you think there will be a sooner Nominet retraction/reinforcement?

There will be a relevant resolution from the PAB, will come out in the meeting report.

However due to time running over, one question I had to hold over until next meeting was why its taking so long to get meeting reports in the public domain, but it will be asked next time fo shizzle

aZooZa · Mar 19, 2009

rob said:
There will be a relevant resolution from the PAB, will come out in the meeting report.

However due to time running over, one question I had to hold over until next meeting was why its taking so long to get meeting reports in the public domain, but it will be asked next time fo shizzle

Rob, it's a shambles IMHO. If I was to conduct business like that, my shareholders/stakeholders would have got rid of that Board lively-like. Time running over? It's just not good enough. Again I mean no disrespect to you personally. I'm just about losing patience with a PAB which has indicated on nom-steer, has no sway whatever with a chronic and unmitigating Board. Methinks it's time for the Board members to consider their position(s) and if I'm not too off cue, they won't have many votes. So we wait another two months?

And as for bonuses - they are extracting the urine surely.

As a 'second stop' why doesn't Nominet adopt the CIRA drop principle?

Deja vu?

Dale

GreyWing · Mar 19, 2009

As much as I criticise a lot in nomland, I genuinely don't think this one drops further than the board. Or more accurately the one person who got this clause put in the T&C's, whoever it was was more knowledgeable than the others on the board about what was the aim of it.

I pretty certain that the PAB wouldn't have given their ok to the passing of this clause. From what I understand, they were given a broad outline of what was happening with the delayed DAC. Then when it was announced, someone had put in a clause. Maybe if there is a way to find out who put the clause in, that would be interesting?

I genuinely don't think it's right to call for any of the heads of PAB on this one. In fact the opposite, I think it should be strengthened and given more teeth mate. People on there after looking at this would have spotted it in my opinion.

rob · Mar 19, 2009

aZooZa said:
So we wait another two months?

Personally I hope it doesnt take that long at all

aZooZa said:
Rob, it's a shambles IMHO. If I was to conduct business like that, my shareholders/stakeholders would have got rid of that Board lively-like. Time running over?

From the PAB point of view I believe the meeting kicked off at 10:30am and ran through until 2:30ish with no stops for lunch etc.

The problem is some members do have to leave on specific times as its not a whole day meeting. Its a hard situation to balance, for example to get input from appointed members its tricky to request 9-5 commitment from them when it could be half a day wasted if the work programme is light (which it currently is not, and I am not sure if it ever is!). Not really an excuse, more just lots of work + limited time = some snips.

The meeting IMHO was very productive and useful, if not entertaining at some points