PAB - what it is - what it can do

[sneezycheese]

PAB Code of Conduct - Section 2.5

An important point I feel in the PAB Code of Conduct:

"2.5 Confidentiality
The default position is that communications between the PAB and stakeholders, including Nominet, will be public. This is to promote openness and transparency as well as to keep all PAB Members informed."

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[Whois-Search]

That said, the question whether it was a policy issue that should have been given more time at PAB level was raised by Andrew, and I expect the same level of feedback the PAB usually gets from the Board on the question raised.

As you know, I was in favour of a Nominet Foundation, but that doesn't mean I won't ask the questions stakeholders want answers to. What Andrew said previously should be proof enough of that as (I hope) will be the meeting that I arranged a while ago for Acorn subscribers with Nominet which both you and Andrew were at.

And what actually happened James as a result of our meetings/efforts?

Simon still had four different versions of his DRS published:
http://www.bezant.me.uk/?page_id=4

The Nominet Foundation is still going ahead with responses such as ratemyeczema.com:
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/26958_Chris_Pawley.pdf

And what about the www.drsconsultation.co.uk ? Default transfer is still going ahead as "Summary Transfer" with an expert looking at it.

At the end of the day if the Nominet board want to do something they will do.

In fact I feel if I do anything it just makes things worse...

It is time to stand up and be counted....before it is too late (next AGM).

 

[Beasty]

As I said to you in our private email exchange, I think you are incorrect to say it wasn't put out to consultation. It was put out in a mini consultation to the Membership. I know you accepted that though you stressed you meant a "proper" consultation, as in discussed at the PAB and put out to a 3 month public consultation.

As an aside, I supported Andrew (at the last PAB meeting) when he suggested that some stakeholders felt the Foundation was indeed a policy issue worthy of more consultation than we got. I suggested they could be right and your favourite reason was given, that it is actually registrant's money that is funding the Foundation (most it is channeled through registrars into the registry's coffers). I stand to be corrected, but I don't think Nominet disagree with that suggestion, i.e. that it is registrant money.



LOL... I wasn't going to "say so", I would say this however; I think events have already overtaken this particular issue because of the fact it did go out to the Membership for consultation and the press releases and framework Nominet is now putting in place. That said, the question whether it was a policy issue that should have been given more time at PAB level was raised by Andrew, and I expect the same level of feedback the PAB usually gets from the Board on the question raised.

As you know, I was in favour of a Nominet Foundation, but that doesn't mean I won't ask the questions stakeholders want answers to. What Andrew said previously should be proof enough of that as (I hope) will be the meeting that I arranged a while ago for Acorn subscribers with Nominet which both you and Andrew were at.

Best wishes
James

In essence, your answer to the question on whether the PAB should call for a thorough consultation and ask to be part of arguably the biggest policy change in Nominet's history is to say that it has been bypassed and that it was now too late to make it clear that it was unhappy with being bypassed and was asking to be consulted before matters went any further.

I do not think it is too late to intervene. No money has yet been distributed. As far as I am aware, no trustees have been appointed. If you think the process was wrong, now is actually a pretty good time to say so.

To be honest, saying it is too late could be seen as a convenient cop out - particularly as you did respond Consultation, despite the short three week period allowed in the run up to Christmas. As far as I can see, there is no suggestion in your response that Nominet should do anything other than press on with the Foundation - which you describe as "an admirable proposal" - and the main part is dealing with the detail of how they should implement the Foundation.

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/26953_James_Conaghan.pdf

 

[Jac]

Also.... you will notice the PAB reports are very carefull when naming people. It tends to be "two members felt" etc. I don't mind my name being used and often I ask for it to be, however many of the appointed members won't be quoted.

For the sake of clarity; I don't think it is as simple as they "won't" be quoted. Appointed members are civil servants (like BERR, ICO or House of Lords) or professional bodies (like CBI or FSB) where they are not at liberty to offer an official comment at this kind of committee meeting.

I'm sure you'd agree the unofficial advice they offer can be of great benefit to the PAB (as sneezy, Rob or Julian may find if they get elected).

Regards
James

 

[Jac]

Is the legal status of a .uk domain name a policy issue? Given that the House of Lords judgment was handed down in May of last year, has the PAB considered considering it - or even getting independent legal advice to guide it, before advising Nominet on whether it should consider changing its T&Cs? Any thoughts from any of the candidates on this?

I think this would be an entirely appropriate question for the PAB to consider. I'd suggest the best time to consider it would be at the first meeting of the new PAB (in May) after the March election has produced the memberships' preferences from all the candidates. (I think you may see a fair number standing this year).

Best wishes
James

 

[Beasty]

For the sake of clarity; I don't think it is as simple as they "won't" be quoted. Appointed members are civil servants (like BERR, ICO or House of Lords) or professional bodies (like CBI or FSB) where they are not at liberty to offer an official comment at this kind of committee meeting.

I'm sure you'd agree the unofficial advice they offer can be of great benefit to the PAB (as sneezy, Rob or Julian may find if they get elected).

Regards
James

I am afraid I do not quite follow the logic of that.

Insofar as politicians and professional bodies are concerned there is no prohibition at all that I can see, other than that which may be self imposed.

As to government departments, one might say that they could state for the record what the official government position on a topic was or was not.

Elected members can and (IMO) should be quoted - since the position they take can be reviewed when considering them for re-election.

It is perfectly possible to operate in a situation where the presumption is that anything said is to be attributed - but with people able to make express exceptions either at the meeting or on review prior to publication beyond the PAB.

 

[Beasty]

I think this would be an entirely appropriate question for the PAB to consider. I'd suggest the best time to consider it would be at the first meeting of the new PAB (in May) after the March election has produced the memberships' preferences from all the candidates. (I think you may see a fair number standing this year).

Best wishes
James

I am glad to see you supporting that idea. Given that the next PAB meeting is in March, prior to the results coming out, perhaps you could propose it then, in readiness for the May meeting.

 

[Jac]

In essence, your answer to the question on whether the PAB should call for a thorough consultation and ask to be part of arguably the biggest policy change in Nominet's history is to say that it has been bypassed and that it was now too late to make it clear that it was unhappy with being bypassed and was asking to be consulted before matters went any further.

You and I both know the term "in essence" implies precisely what was intended, and you of all people know that is not what I precisely intended at all. So please note the other bit of what I said: "that doesn't mean I won't ask the questions stakeholders want answers to" and please also acknowledge my support of Andrew on the question he raised.

I do not think it is too late to intervene. No money has yet been distributed. As far as I am aware, no trustees have been appointed. If you think the process was wrong, now is actually a pretty good time to say so.

No, it's never too late for anything within the limitations of a given process. From a practical standpoint (because it's the way it is) the PAB has no mandate to hold The Board to account for the way it spends its profits. That doesn't mean the PAB doesn't question Nominet if they get a whiff of something that even loosely resembles Policy, they do. In this instance Andrew did, and I supported his question.

Let's look at who benefits?

Nominet says it created the Foundation to fund education, research and development initiatives in the UK Internet industry. This would be in the interests of all registrants.

What you have taken issue with is the lack of "proper" consultation. I will happily address that issue at the next PAB meeting (even though it may be my last). I have always been prepared to ask questions that registrants want the PAB to formerly address, you know that already.

As far as I can see, there is no suggestion in your response that Nominet should do anything other than press on with the Foundation - which you describe as "an admirable proposal" - and the main part is dealing with the detail of how they should implement the Foundation.

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/26953_James_Conaghan.pdf

It is an admirable proposal in the context of who benefits from it. I don't get paid for giving my opinion even if it is in Nominet's defence - though I say plenty of things that are not. I have concerns about who the trustees will be, how they will be appointed, and how they will reach consensus on who is and isn't a worthy recipient of funds. I have been quite open about my reservations both on nom-steer and on Acorn, and also on my website ... but you know that already too.

In an ideal world, you would always get what you wanted, but that would mean that nobody else did. Finding a balance (compromise) in all of the volatile issues in life is the hard bit. Nobody said it was easy. All we can do is keep trying.

Regards
James

 

[Jac]

I am afraid I do not quite follow the logic of that.

Insofar as politicians and professional bodies are concerned there is no prohibition at all that I can see, other than that which may be self imposed.

As to government departments, one might say that they could state for the record what the official government position on a topic was or was not.

What people say unofficially (or in private) is of just as much and sometimes more benefit than what they might be able to say publicly.

Regards
James

 

[landlord]

Beasty ... clearly your domain

Beasty your take on domain as property shows you have your finger on the pulse even though you say less these days...

Are you the uk's version of Kabateck Brown Kellner?

Lee

 

[Beasty]

Beasty your take on domain as property shows you have your finger on the pulse even though you say less these days...

Are you the uk's version of Kabateck Brown Kellner?

Lee

LOL - multimillion dollar class actions! Very flattering Lee - but I am just doing what I can, when asked.

Just read the thread about their action against Network Solutions - now I understand the comment better! I was a bit

 

[Beasty]

You and I both know the term "in essence" implies precisely what was intended, and you of all people know that is not what I precisely intended at all. So please note the other bit of what I said: "that doesn't mean I won't ask the questions stakeholders want answers to" and please also acknowledge my support of Andrew on the question he raised.

My point was that it should surely have been on the PAB agenda and - following discussion - might have led to a motion. Personally I would have liked one calling on Nominet to suspend the current process and to re-start it with a "long" consultation that included asking the PAB for its opinion on this very important policy issue.

No, it's never too late for anything within the limitations of a given process. From a practical standpoint (because it's the way it is) the PAB has no mandate to hold The Board to account for the way it spends its profits. That doesn't mean the PAB doesn't question Nominet if they get a whiff of something that even loosely resembles Policy, they do. In this instance Andrew did, and I supported his question.

No one is talking about holding the Board to account - rather requesting the right to take part in the process. At present, the decision has been taken by four elected people (insofar as I am aware none of whom stood on a policy that £5 million be paid out of Nominet without so much as a members vote) and two unelected employees - using an obviously contrived short consultation process undertaken in the run up to Christmas. If you can not see the problem with that, then we must differ on how we view it.

Let's look at who benefits?

Nominet says it created the Foundation to fund education, research and development initiatives in the UK Internet industry. This would be in the interests of all registrants.

What you have taken issue with is the lack of "proper" consultation. I will happily address that issue at the next PAB meeting (even though it may be my last). I have always been prepared to ask questions that registrants want the PAB to formerly address, you know that already.



It is an admirable proposal in the context of who benefits from it. I don't get paid for giving my opinion even if it is in Nominet's defence - though I say plenty of things that are not. I have concerns about who the trustees will be, how they will be appointed, and how they will reach consensus on who is and isn't a worthy recipient of funds. I have been quite open about my reservations both on nom-steer and on Acorn, and also on my website ... but you know that already too.

In an ideal world, you would always get what you wanted, but that would mean that nobody else did. Finding a balance (compromise) in all of the volatile issues in life is the hard bit. Nobody said it was easy. All we can do is keep trying.

Firstly, I think the priority should be preventing future profits on the scale that they are being made. Since costs are dropping and numbers of domains being registered is increasing - then I think the thing to look at is price. Nominet's policy now seems to be the profit being made is fine, all we need to do is spend it on a Foundation. A major Policy shift - what input has the PAB had on this?

I am not that convinced that the world needs another charitable trust - if money is not to be given back to those who paid it in (which I think it should be) then why not simply give it to a number of charities nominated by those who pay the money (the registrants) or whose asset it may have become (the members). Save on the costs of appointing another committee of "the great and the good" to spend other people's money.

Compromise is great - but like the tango, it takes two!

 

[Beasty]

What people say unofficially (or in private) is of just as much and sometimes more benefit than what they might be able to say publicly.

Of course that is true - but it has nothing to do with detailing who says what when they are "on the record" in the meetings.

 

[Jac]

My point was that it should surely have been on the PAB agenda and - following discussion - might have led to a motion. Personally I would have liked one calling on Nominet to suspend the current process and to re-start it with a "long" consultation that included asking the PAB for its opinion on this very important policy issue.

For the record, I can remember the Foundation idea being mentioned at 2 PAB meetings last year (at least) and if I remember correctly the PAB agreed that Nominet should put it out to the Membership for consultation. This seemed to be the appropriate consultation method because the Membership per se appoints and elects the Board and then lets the board get on with running the company on an operational level. (This is no different from a bunch of shareholders letting the board of a 'for profit' company get on with it too.) At the time, I remember the PAB being in argeement,that this was the correct consultation course, and I remember the appointed members being very much in favour of a Foundation that would benefit the wider community (including their own constituencies) and not just Nominet Members.

In hindsight (which is a magical tool) Andrew was convinced that the Foundation was more of a wider policy issue than we had first thought. I agreed it was something that needed to be addressed.

Your comments give the impression Nominet did not consult with anyone else apart from the Membership. This is untrue. Nominet consulted with other stakeholders and stakeholder groups throughout the wider community. The Board may not be able to say this, but I will, they have to ensure they do nothing to raise questions from the regulatory authorities, so they have to consult beyond the Membership in all these issues. That's the political side of being on a Board that administers what many in the community now view as a national asset, you can't just do what you want whether some of you think they do or not. I would think there are huge pressures on the Board from government and all other stakeholder groups to consider everyone - the wider community - when deciding these things.

The Membership of the company has already given the Board its approval and as various government agencies, business organisations, and at least one MP (the former DTI minister of state for industry) and one Lord have too. The PAB has to take ALL of these stakeholders and stakeholder groups into consideration, so it's inevitable that someone somewhere is going to end up disappointed. That's how it works with all democratic processes, and you don't always get what you want.

I would personally love to see everyone getting their heart's desire, but from a practical standpoint, no democratic process will ever be able to encompass the wishes of everyone. Even in court, one doesn't always win the day for their particular side, even if they think they're right, do they?

Regards
James

 

[Jac]

Firstly, I think the priority should be preventing future profits on the scale that they are being made. Since costs are dropping and numbers of domains being registered is increasing - then I think the thing to look at is price. Nominet's policy now seems to be the profit being made is fine, all we need to do is spend it on a Foundation. A major Policy shift - what input has the PAB had on this?

By all means lobby Nominet about price, everyone has the right. However, the PAB has no mandate to set price levels, and can I please remind you, that for everyone who wants a price reduction there are others who want the price to remain the same, and some of 'em even want the price to rise. Are their opinions any less important, as stakeholders, than anyone else?

It's very easy to say let's just drop the price but this will inevitably increase the dropcatching and domaining business models and inevitably increase the numbers of DRS complaints and inevitably lead to increased disgruntlement amongst said business models. It will, lest we forget, also increase the dissatisfaction amongst ordinary stakeholders (and I mean millions of 'em) who continually complain they can't get their domain name of choice.

So it's not just a single 'let's drop the price' issue Beasty, as all the other guys who are standing for election will realise if they actually get elected to a Policy Advisory Body whose purpose and role seems to be continually misunderstood.

Best wishes
James

 

[Jac]

I am not that convinced that the world needs another charitable trust - if money is not to be given back to those who paid it in (which I think it should be) then why not simply give it to a number of charities nominated by those who pay the money (the registrants) or whose asset it may have become (the members). Save on the costs of appointing another committee of "the great and the good" to spend other people's money.

It may not be given back directly to those who paid it in, but the Foundation will benefit the whole community. Even if that is regarded as just an indirect benefit, it's still going back to the community who paid it in.

By the by..

This kind of argument reminds me of the things people said way back in history. Like in 1899, when Charles Duell of the U.S. Patent Office said: "Everything that can be invented, has been invented" or when the first photocopier was invented, the guys who produced carbon paper said, "it'll never catch on". Once these community changing innovations were given a chance, everyone benefited.

Best wishes
James

 

[Beasty]

For the record, I can remember the Foundation idea being mentioned at 2 PAB meetings last year (at least) and if I remember correctly the PAB agreed that Nominet should put it out to the Membership for consultation. This seemed to be the appropriate consultation method because the Membership per se appoints and elects the Board and then lets the board get on with running the company on an operational level. (This is no different from a bunch of shareholders letting the board of a 'for profit' company get on with it too.) At the time, I remember the PAB being in argeement,that this was the correct consultation course, and I remember the appointed members being very much in favour of a Foundation that would benefit the wider community (including their own constituencies) and not just Nominet Members.

Could you please point to where this is minuted in the PAB reports? What I have seen is the more recent reference to it, which suggests that at least some of the appointed members did not even know about it at all - until after the consultation had been and gone.

Yes, the Board is responsible for operational matters. I do not agree with you that the decision to set up a Foundation (into which it seems £5 million per annum will be paid) is an operational matter - I think is is pretty obviously about as big a policy change as one has seen for a while from Nominet.

If,as you state above, the current PAB agreed that the shortest possible consultation period conducted in the run up to Christmas

was the correct consultation course

then I would not vote for anyone who supported that decision.

Your comments give the impression Nominet did not consult with anyone else apart from the Membership. This is untrue. Nominet consulted with other stakeholders and stakeholder groups throughout the wider community. The Board may not be able to say this, but I will, they have to ensure they do nothing to raise questions from the regulatory authorities, so they have to consult beyond the Membership in all these issues. That's the political side of being on a Board that administers what many in the community now view as a national asset, you can't just do what you want whether some of you think they do or not. I would think there are huge pressures on the Board from government and all other stakeholder groups to consider everyone - the wider community - when deciding these things.

How were these consultations carried out and how openly were they reported? Like you, I am a great fan of openness and transparency. The only consultation I have seen has a pretty small number of responses - and many of those seem to be opening bids from groups wanting to benefit from the Foundation's money.

The Membership of the company has already given the Board its approval and as various government agencies, business organisations, and at least one MP (the former DTI minister of state for industry) and one Lord have too. The PAB has to take ALL of these stakeholders and stakeholder groups into consideration, so it's inevitable that someone somewhere is going to end up disappointed. That's how it works with all democratic processes, and you don't always get what you want.

In what way has the "membership" given approval for this? As far as I can see, they have not been asked in any formal way - nor have they been offered any serious alternatives. The bridge that the PAB is meant to be -between the members and the Board - made no formal comment on the proposal nor - so far as one can judge - was it even asked to.

How it works in a democratic process is that people are given information and a reasonable time to weigh up the options that are put in front of them; and then they vote on it. In an oligarchy, on the other hand, those who "know best" tell everyone else how it is going to be. Which one do you think this situation most resembles?

Also, I repeat that the minutes suggest that the appointed PAB members had no idea what it was until mentioned at the recent meeting.

I would personally love to see everyone getting their heart's desire, but from a practical standpoint, no democratic process will ever be able to encompass the wishes of everyone. Even in court, one doesn't always win the day for their particular side, even if they think they're right, do they?

Indeed - but the problem with monopolies is that some people can impose their heart's desire unless there are adequate checks and balances.

 

[Beasty]

It may not be given back directly to those who paid it in, but the Foundation will benefit the whole community. Even if that is regarded as just an indirect benefit, it's still going back to the community who paid it in.

By the by..

This kind of argument reminds me of the things people said way back in history. Like in 1899, when Charles Duell of the U.S. Patent Office said: "Everything that can be invented, has been invented" or when the first photocopier was invented, the guys who produced carbon paper said, "it'll never catch on". Once these community changing innovations were given a chance, everyone benefited.

Best wishes
James

This is not an invention James. If it were, then it would be like re-inventing the wheel - unless you can show it is a much better wheel, why not save the time and money and just pay it to existing charities to re-distribute the wealth.

Again, this is a debate that should have been had before the creation of the Foundation was rubber stamped so quickly. Even if the result is right or even if it is the one that might have been reached after proper debate - the fact that the debate was short circuited lies (in no small part) at the door of those installed to represent the members in big policy issues.

 

[Beasty]

By all means lobby Nominet about price, everyone has the right. However, the PAB has no mandate to set price levels, and can I please remind you, that for everyone who wants a price reduction there are others who want the price to remain the same, and some of 'em even want the price to rise. Are their opinions any less important, as stakeholders, than anyone else?

It's very easy to say let's just drop the price but this will inevitably increase the dropcatching and domaining business models and inevitably increase the numbers of DRS complaints and inevitably lead to increased disgruntlement amongst said business models. It will, lest we forget, also increase the dissatisfaction amongst ordinary stakeholders (and I mean millions of 'em) who continually complain they can't get their domain name of choice.

So it's not just a single 'let's drop the price' issue Beasty, as all the other guys who are standing for election will realise if they actually get elected to a Policy Advisory Body whose purpose and role seems to be continually misunderstood.

The PAB has no mandate to change prices. But the PAB does have a mandate to seek the opinions of members, make policy suggestions and ask to have it put out to wider consultation and/or to a member vote.

I also do not accept that dropping the price (from say £5 to £4) would result in a massive rise in dropcatching. Good names are caught and indeed competed for at either price - indeed the PAB is discussing what to do about renewals at the moment. I am not aware that that debate is predicated on the idea that there are any shortage of willing dropcatchers! The "millions" of unhappy stakeholders (you must have a bulging email box BTW to know this! ) are (you say) already unhappy - so a price drop won't stop them getting what they want - as you say they already can't get it!

.eu (a not for profit organisation) has dropped its reg fees twice already I believe - form €10 to €5 and then to €4. I believe they did this to try to operate at a break even level - or at least closer to it.

It is not a single issue James - but it is at the heart of many others. Lesley seemed to be saying at ICANN that she thought the current price was "about right" and she anticipated that the Foundation would "we very much hope" be getting £5 million or thereabouts annually.

So it seems the current Board and PAB (since it is a policy issue on which they have not differed from the Board on) are happy to make a big profit and to spend it on the Foundation.

Other candidates seem to want the PAB to look into the question of profits and prices and the Foundation - and to take a good hard look at it and to advise the Board on these Policy issues. Not a single issue, but a serious group of issues.

 

[bb99]

"Advantage Beasty"...