.UK Announced

[markb]

NO!


If GreyWing is a sitting on dynamite, then the bang will attract Goverment attention. Which isn't great news. If they really are up to such shenanigans with our (UK's) Nominet they need the boot.

I get the feeling there might be a whistle blower or two in the Nominet ranks. Which is fair enough, over the years we have seen some very poor behaviour from the top.

I dont understand your comments regarding GreyWing, care to explain to us?

 

[markb]

I dont understand your comments regarding GreyWing, care to explain to us?

Its Ok, i've just seen the post from greywing on the previous page, we'll wait to see if they republish the article.

 

[websaway]

I dont understand your comments regarding GreyWing, care to explain to us?

read greywings post from circa 7am this morning

 

[grantw]

evidence has come out showing Nominet as being very cosy with ministers, even using private e-mails to circumvent the freedom of information act, so I'm not sure if you can trust the government or Nominet here.

There's now an official investigation into that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...ion-over-FoI-avoidance-in-Nominet-emails.html

Glad this previous scandal hasn't been buried by this .uk stuff!

Grant

 

[anthony]

There needs to be a true independent enquiry into the running of Nominet. I haven't seen the document that Graeme refers to but it's already obvious that certain directors are obsessed with profit and act as if they have something to prove.

Would people prefer the government running Nominet for the good of the country and business or megalomaniacs running it with an unhealthy desire to make an already profitable, not-for-profit company, more profitable.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if the Board of Nominet were to approve a profit share/profit related bonus structure now, before a .uk launch, then for years into the future, certain individuals will stand to make a lot of money.

One would have hoped that the Fritch was going to bring about positive changes to Nominet moving forward, because by God it bloody well needs it. However, to read her statement that the use of private emails was...

"... a misguided attempt to ensure that open and honest conversations about how to secure the membership model of Nominet could take place, without being inappropriately influenced by those with vested interests..."

...is simply laughable. Appearing to shift the responsibility like this is cringeworthy reading to say the least. Was she speaking for the actions of the Government officials too, it certainly points that way?

 

[tifosi]

If they go down the trademark priority route will they take the location into account where the trademark is a non-uk registered company. Just checked for one of my domains scheduled for development as a joint venture and it has TM against it and all are non-uk based european businesses.

Are they / will they be valid? What's against me going to them asking to piggyback their trademark and using them to register the domain?

 

[grantw]

The more that comes to the publics attention, the more I'm convinced that we'd be better with the government running the registry.

I'm not sure about government involvement personally but with those leaked private emails that seem to suggest massive maniplulation then and further down the line and this .uk fiasco, I have virtually no trust left in the board whatsoever! That's before I've seen what Graeme has got!

I actually feel foolish for trusting them at all!!

Grant

 

[DomainManagement]

it not right and not correct

When the idea of creating a registry , for web addresses , i would imagine there
was a great deal of consultation on how to lay out a really easy to use
identification system

and the result = .co.uk .org.uk .me.uk which i think we can all agree has served us well .and is serving us well . i would like to know which bright spark has decided to mess with this system ,

imagine how confusing it will be with sub domains anything.Do.uK

if nominet is to hold governance over, how much did it say in the telegraph
82 million gbp its spent online , and we have these people who are looking after the infrastructure , they have been summed up by a judge , to be dishonest ,that they lied and covered up and were deceitful ,this is what a judge said after summing up are these people fit for purpose , i don't think so are these people fit , to look after our interests and that of the countries digital economy , i think not , i really think that if we dig deeper there is a lot more that will be uncovered ,

Question ?? are you all going to hang around , while this bunch are voting themselves bonuses and changing the landscape of our urls

and the question of making it that you have to be a uk citizen to register a .uk is in complete disregard of eu law . or are they that close to the government that they know something we don't about our future eu involvement ????

sorry about grammar and layout

regards the passionate dyslexic

 

[GreyWing]

The files are here for anyone that wants to read them,

Some extracts --------------

Head of e-business at CBI "domainers are scum"

----------

"I could remind him that there was never any ministerial approval for N to move .uk out of Government in the first place - that will put the wind up... (and DH knows) But it is high risk"



http://www.that.co.uk/nominet-members/nominet-files.html

 

[cav]

I guess this is why Nominet.org.uk have relaxed rules re "for profit" corporations using the .org.uk extension!

 

[grantw]

"What should happen next?"

......."Hold to account any directors who are found to have misled the company’s owners,
and/or derived financial benefits as a result."

Too right!!!!!!!!

Grant

 

[~andy]

This is what I don't understand.. Lesley Cowley, takes £265k+ a year, has an OBE to her name and (you would assume) a substantial pension waiting. Life is sweet.. So why rock the boat?

Who is pulling the strings here?

 

[websaway]

Is this thread risking becoming a witchhunt rather than about the introduction of .UK ?

 

[GreyWing]

Is this thread risking becoming a witchhunt rather than about the introduction of .UK ?

People will have to come to their own conclusions after they have read it I suppose.

 

[Edwin]

The document (from 2004!) that shows up for the following Google search makes interesting reading (cut and paste the entire string below into the Google search box)...

site:nominet.org.uk filetypedf "uk revisited"

Note that you will have to use the "Quick View" option to read it, because Nominet's extremely recent rejigging of their entire website structure means that the original document is now 404.

 

[~andy]

If I was the extremely successful Chief Executive of this non profit organisation, then I'd just strive to keep the reliable, professional services up until I left the position.

Shaking up the market, would be of no benefit to me or the public. I just don't get why you would bring this on yourself. It doesn't make sense to me.

Answers on a postcard.

 

[anthony]

The files are here for anyone that wants to read them,

Some extracts --------------

Head of e-business at CBI "domainers are scum"

----------

"I could remind him that there was never any ministerial approval for N to move .uk out of Government in the first place - that will put the wind up... (and DH knows) But it is high risk"



http://www.that.co.uk/nominet-members/nominet-files.html

Nice GW. Nice the emails still show up too on mouseover!

 

[~andy]

The document (from 2004!) that shows up for the following Google search makes interesting reading

http://web.archive.org/web/20070125....org.uk/digitalAssets/3257_dotukrevisited.pdf

 

[Edwin]

Interestingly the possible introduction of registrations under .uk was discussed on 6 September 2012 by Nominet's board.
http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/Sept2012communique.pdf

From that document: "The Executive presented a consultation proposed for public comment and outreach in relation to the opening up of the .uk registry at the second level. The Board approved the consultation for publication and requested that as many stakeholder views as possible be gathered in order to properly inform any decision."

NOTE: the document did not identify the "Executive" in question.

 

[websaway]

The document (from 2004!) that shows up for the following Google search makes interesting reading (cut and paste the entire string below into the Google search box)...

site:nominet.org.uk filetypedf "uk revisited"

Note that you will have to use the "Quick View" option to read it, because Nominet's extremely recent rejigging of their entire website structure means that the original document is now 404.

To sort out trademark issues , bring in £30 million. and shaft current co.uk owners.
why didn't they just say that.