Discussion in 'Nominet General Information' started by Acorn Newsbot, Jul 16, 2020.
I will be writing a complaint to Nominet about Mr Thornton's posts
74 have now signed
I've already signed it, I doubt they will care though.
Unfortunately it'll probably be filed in the push pedal filing cabinet
Basically Nominet require the EGM approach, if this is correct.
Section 303 Companies Act.
Would it help if large non-UK registrars sign the petition?
The petition can be only be signed by Nominet members.
Last time I checked you were a UK registrar and Nominet member.
Unless of course you're asking for a friend, and some say you have a lot of them
I already signed. The question is if big ones sign would it help? I know people in most big registrars, I don't think I'll get Godaddy etc. to sign but maybe smaller ones (but still huge) like Hexonet could do it. We are a valued client everywhere so I hope our voice will be heard.
Hexonet is on the Nominet members list so their signature would count.
On a separate note, it would probably help to be more active on this forum and occasionally respond to some concerns people might have about your activity
Nominet's Complaints Department
You aspire to trolling?
Derek, you joined this forum just weeks ago, and the owner of the forum has asked you to "please reveal yourself if you want to contribute to a thread of this nature."
You have ignored that request. You've changed your avatar flags 6 times, which gives the impression you're messing around. I think ignoring the owner of a forum you've just joined is disrespectful. You may not agree.
At least we know who Kalin is. Your photo of 'Bulgarian farmers' the other day in my opinion was distasteful. I think the issue at the heart of this is that Nominet's rules could not be enforced, and it couldn't carry on. I've written to Nominet today, asking for a 12 month cooling off period, to try out solutions, and to show respect to people who have not cheated but who will be hit the hardest.
I'm not seeking a reply, with another new flag. You say you aspire to trolling, you ignore the owner, so what are you doing?
Oh, don't answer, you've been asked not to.
@Derek - you have been banned.
Latest update from Eleanor
Thanks Mark. There is a response to Eleanor Bradley's missive on the (rather moribund) Nominet Forum, written by Andrew Bennett. Although I don't generally post there (and very few do), I've added my own views there on this occasion, which are as follows:
Nominet needs to express genuine concern for the very real financial impact many of these decisions are going to have on individuals, small businesses and people's families in a time of pandemic. Obviously it is a really bad time for people to suffer economic hardship.
Personally, although I have taken a long-term interest in all alternatives to cheating, I think it would be fitting in the context of significant financial consequences to propose an interim period beyond the consultation, where ways were further explored that might 'mitigate' the cheating. And although I wouldn't assume that the cheating/enforcement could be resolved (it depends on what solutions emerge) - I think there is an issue of respect, owed to bona fide Nominet members who have not cheated but who stand to be hit the hardest by any changes.
For example: a 12-month 'interim' period where any realistic proposals for maintaining equal catching access to the namespace could be put to the test. Not that I am sure that the 'gaming' of the system could be stopped, but it would show respect for people who face hardship (I know at least one little family with a new-born, where the present system just about keeps them afloat) and would also serve notice and more time for people to plan and change the financial models of their lives, should that become necessary.
I think it would be good for Nominet to provide that interim period and genuinely explore ways out of this, besides Nominet's favoured proposals. I totally agree that you can't just have people circumventing rules. But Nominet must never forget that it is putting a whole group of its members to the sword. Obviously I've seen that coming, and this whole crunch point, and those of you in policy know I have. We've been heading for this train crash as Nominet have failed to enforce their own rules, or been unable to. Solutions have to be found. But it seems only just and decent to signal awareness and more openly acknowledge the significant economic pain these proposals will cause... and not just to verbally acknowledge it, but to take actions that fundamentally show respect to Members. It seems only just and decent to create an interim period of 12 to 24 months to really see if all parties can come up with workable solutions. There is also just the basic decency of allowing people adequate time to plan how their businesses or family finances are going to be dealt with.
One last point: I agree with Andrew Bennett, that future consultation responses ought to be published, open, and available for all to see. This could help people share ideas, and collectively build on one another's concepts. It would also be more transparent. To be honest, this ought to apply to Nominet's internal meetings too, which should be minuted in detail, and made available for Members to read.
The point being, that Members are not just cash cows. There needs to be recognition and respect, that they form valuable parts of a business that serves both the national interest, and the aspirations of those contributing to it. I am acutely concerned that large tech companies hold too much sway - with ICANN, with the registries - and when things are kept occluded, you just invite the suspicions that decisions are being taken internally, with representatives of the largest companies inevitably influencing decisions and outcomes because of their commercial dominance. Whatever way your consultation goes - and I hope you follow my advice about an extended interim period - it is unlikely to be the very large companies that get hit the hardest. Indeed, I worry that further down the road they may even capitalise on it. It is ordinary, smaller members who will take the hit, and at this juncture respect is essential.
"As commercial gain was not our objective, we have suggested that any additional funds raised by changing the policy would be directed towards public benefit activity or used to provide specific services to registrars"
Does Nominet know how to use income for us better than we know how to use it for ourselves
I was going to use some of it to live on but I guess who needs that when there are registrar services
"As commercial gain was not our objective, we have suggested that any additional funds raised by changing the policy would be directed towards public benefit activity or used to provide specific services to registrars".
Lowering renewals far more appropriate. Technically its a run at cost not for profit enterprise. They really are lost in their own malaise.
They've been lost since at least 2012. Hard to believe how long ago the .uk chaos started, but fortunately I have my ancient campaign website to remind me...
Yes they well and truly screwed the namespace with .uk.
now 91 signatures - an impressive list now including a larger retail registrar - nominet might want to file this in the bin but getting increasingly harder to ignore.
If nominet are incapable of proving the creation of multiple tags/registrars in order to game the system for dropcatching, how can they do it for voting rights? I understand the weighting makes it a lot more difficult to influence, but still, makes a mockery of it in my opinion.
Separate names with a comma.