20i Domains

WHOIS details

Discussion in 'Nominet General Information' started by Admin, Apr 29, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. netserve

    netserve Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    226
    Likes Received:
    5
    Thats true if you only value Nominet membership in terms of what it costs to register a domain name.

    We consider Nominet membership gives us direct administrative control over the domains, it puts us in control and being a member gives us access to Nominet at a much higher level so that our views are heard. Membership also gives 'street cred' having a recognisable logo on your site from Nominet, Manap, Mcix adds perceived value.
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
    articles.co.uk
     
  3. olebean

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    29
    Jac

    We could talk economics if you wish, there your argument would fall apart...

    Secondly "cost recovery" is a term used for unrelated and related costs. So costs of what exactly? Don't get me wrong you will no doubt feel you know the answer or attempt to blag through use of other peoples quotations... In reality accountants in most cases dont know the full answer but will point to nominal codes and the data provided when they have drilled for a result

    Equally, the relation or proportion of relative costs to an associated membership cannot in reailty be the same today as 7 years ago, even with the best forcasting the corralations quite frankly will be a load of bolux....


    As for Gym costs, its intersting you see it as a reduction, unless nominet / you are suggesting the cost recovery is £100 for membership, where on earth did the figure come from.... Its totally disproportionate

    If you read my comments I didnt suggest there wasnt a cost


    Thanks for that comnnt Jac... Should I point you to some of your other comments in other threads ;)

    I am pleased you recognise that facts are required, the problem is it appears everytime a You or Nominet staff attempt to defend / justify a Nominet position.
    1. They havent done appropriate research
    2. They don't know what they are talking about and make themselves look like a figgins

    Jac

    For someone thats been involved with Nominet for a considerable time, and on the PAB

    What have you changed? What difference has that position made? Is the position there to serve your own political agenda?

    In another thread Jac you suggested that we "work with Nominet", sometimes issues need to be pushed, that is not the short run agenda!

    Finally: Its interesting to see that at no point has any PAB or Nominet member suggested that Nominet has conducted studies or are willing to sponsor / encourage a study on domainers ownership........ Why no answer??

    Simpe question Jac requiring a Yes or No answer Should Nominet support / encourage a study on domain ownership?
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2006
  4. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    You could be right and you could be wrong but at least one of us allows for the possibility of both (just not you it seems). But why do you continually go off on points that are nothing to do with the answers I have previously given? The cost recovery figures I quoted were simply given as a factual basis for discussion but I guess facts don't matter to you as much as they might to others. Incidentally; I explained in great detail, in a very early exchange between us, what I meant by "costs of what exactly". If you cannot be bothered to show me the courtesy of reading what I write, what's the point of this argument; other than to simply ridicule what you have consistently refused to accept as the facts of the matter? :confused:

    Too late!

    Read my lips: I do not blag! I don't mind banter olebean; I don't even mind being criticised for all the wrong reasons; but I do mind being accused of blagging (even if it is an indirect reference).

    I didn't see the Gym costs as a reduction at all. I stated they cost me £36 a month each and every month and/or £432 a year each and every year. They don't reduce. My point was that Nominet's Membership fee reduces to 25% of the joining fee or 75% less! Please stick to facts!

    Well then, instead of criticising my attempts at giving impartial facts on Nominet and its cost recovery structure, why don't you suggest what you think the cost should be, instead of simply stating everything that everybody else says is bolux. I am all ears...

    Not if you are going to continually misrepresent and misinterpret what I have written. If that's all you wish to do, there's no point just arguing for the sake of argument.

    I have always recognised facts are required; but when I give them, you say it's a load of bulox. I keep telling you, facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. :rolleyes:

    I don't defend or justify any Nominet position, I give you the facts and/or the reasons why they do things as they do. I defend my own standpoints on the various issues; I'm allowed to do that; it's called democracy; and spookily enough it's the same reason you can make such derisory comments with impunity; but then; I'm a free speech kinda guy.

    I am not paid to defend Nominet or anybody else, but I find this penchant to be destructive as opposed to con-structive a tad unwarranted. It is not in my nature to allow misinformation to exist simply because people do not have the decorum to accept they may not always be right in everything they think and say. The possibility that 2 + 2 might equal 5 may well exist in the minds of paranormalists, but the possibility that facts are not facts doesn't; except in the case of paranoid schizophrenics where anything is possible!

    Actually olebean, I don't have to justify myself to you. I don't know if you are a Nominet member but those are the people who elected me, not you. I have no political agenda because I am not a politician, but I do certainly have an interest in protecting the wider stakeholder communities from biased, misinformed, and duplicitous standpoints like yours. Either pull your head out of the sand and stop being so damned egotistical or just step off that lofty pedestal you've put your ego on. Either may have the desired effect of bringing you down to earth where facts grow in fields of truth. ;)

    Why don't you go to another well known forum and ask Richard Martin about who pushes what and on behalf of whom at PAB meetings. Maybe you'll believe someone Acorn Domains seems to have been instrumental in voting onto the PAB.

    The answer wouldn't matter because, as I have continually said, domain name wealth does not equate to registrant representation. There are 1506 individual subscribers to this forum. Even if they all owned thousands of domain names they would still be only 1506 registrants. There are almost 5,000,000 domain name .uk registrations. Even if half of them are owned by domainers, there are an awful lot more user registrants whose interests need to be accounted for. That is also democracy and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!

    Only if it is accompanied by a .au type consultation. Then it would reflect wider stakeholder views. Do you want me to initiate it?

    Regards
    James Conaghan
    [PAB Member]
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2006
  5. retired_member27

    retired_member27 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Is this thread ever going to end, it's SOOOOOOO boring. :)
     
  6. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    Hey! You don't have to read it. That's your democratic right! :cool:

    Regards
    James Conaghan
    [PAB Member]
     
  7. bb99 United Kingdom

    bb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,618
    Likes Received:
    38
    Now then James... I know you used the word "seems", but on what basis have you reached this conclusion?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    LOL... okay; fair question! Here's a clue. Richard came onto AD suggesting that if you wouldn't buy a domain name from him you might consider voting for him in the PAB election instead.

    I've got nothing against campaigning per se and each to his own; I just mentioned him in that he might be prepared to agree that my standpoint is very much in the interests of the wider stakeholder communities, not just Nominet or Nominet members; although members are a very important stakeholder group to me. After all, they elected me! :D

    Regards
    James Conaghan
    [PAB Member]
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2006
  9. olebean

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    29
    James

    My ego affords me the benefit of being able to ignore the irrelevant content in threads and allows others to judge...

    I deal with the issues I consider most important....

    You suggest an investigagtion would be irrelevant or doesnt matter, but welcome it, if it is along the lines of .au....

    Firstly, I welcome the acknowledgment that it would be welcomed, shame that Nominet don't... Whether it matters or not i covered in my previous threads and yes it does matter for the reasons you believe it doesnt... I know we will not agree on it, but the level of "domainers ownership" does (by way of income generation) and could (in the political sense) have significant impact on the structure of Nominet

    Secondly, and again I see we will not have consensus..... The level of membership/joining fee (which if is reduced to £100), will be inline with may other industries, where this proportion is more equitable, would encourage greater take up (Devolving of power i wonder?)....

    Thirdly, from what I have read, the consultation is about acceptance of a business model, not combining the model with number crunching..

    As for distructive, I argue that it is distructive to the existing in favour of wider stakeholders..... Does that make the position wrong? Perhaps/Perhaps not...

    Since we have gone around in circles, exploring plenty of avenues, discovering plenty. As apd suggested it is perhaps time unless others wish to add to the debate to close this thread and perhaps pursue the issue of when you will push the issue of a study or offers of studies and collaboration?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    And that is your prerogative. I did not mean to insinuate it wasn't; but if you flay a horse long enough, don't be surprised if he kicks back. ;)

    Well, you don't know that for a fact. The question(s) could still be asked but I would urge you to consider what you actually want to 'investigate' and the possible repercussions of said investigation. See my comments below (last paragraph).

    IMO if the tens of thousands of .uk domain names that domainers hold were put back in the FCFS pot, then people would snap them up and "income generation" would level itself out in the rush to register what they couldn't previously get. By way of corroboration for this opinion, I would point you to the first day of trading in .EU names, where (if I remember correctly) 780,000 domains were registered in one day.

    I see nothing wrong with suggesting the membership fee should be reviewed, even on the £100 basis. If your third point refers to the voting structure consultation (which is specifically a member issue) it hasn't concluded yet, but most views so far seem to favour one particular option. I guess we will see what we see when it is indeed concluded.

    I am personally happy to pursue requests for specific studies but it would make it more feasible if I can sell the benefit to the wider stakeholder communities. I would personally be reluctant to waste the resources of a community led registry on an issue that might affect only 1506 stakeholders; which is why I suggested it should be done in conjunction with a wider stakeholder community agenda. However, as the answers I believe you would get, would not necessarily be in the interests of domainers, I would suggest the status quo should be looked on a tad more favourably than it currently is. Sometimes the status quo isn't as bad as it might appear to be when compared to what might be.

    Regards
    James Conaghan
    [PAB Member]
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2006
  11. olebean

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    29
    Jac

    I am sure the "wider community" would agree a sponsored study/ study is in the best interests of all, especially in what we have observered is a fast changing market.

    Who knows it may even compound nominets position, equally it maybe better for Nominet to be seen as "activitely participating" rather than having to respond to a study that will inevitably take place.....
     
  12. texidriver United States

    texidriver Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    488
    Likes Received:
    13
    "WHOIS details"

    'member what this thread was about ?

    ICANN Meetings in Wellington, New Zealand on March 29th, which discusses ......the removal of the name and contact information of the owner of a domain from whois information in what will be available to the public.


    http://www.icann.org/meetings/wellington/captioning-gnso-29mar06.htm
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.