Guys,
The deadline for replying to Nominet's consultation on dropping domains is Friday 14th August, with a web discussion on the Tuesday of that week. And then that's it... over to Nominet to decide.
We already have an 8-page thread on the news release, but that's more of a reaction thread, with plenty of negativity about Nominet (which anyone can understand in the circumstances), but sadly also quite a lot of infighting and name-calling which is totally unproductive.
I watched the way recently this community worked collaboratively with Lazarus to help develop flip.uk, and that was really productive, so I am wondering if the same could be done with people working together to develop one or more models to present to Nominet.
To achieve that, and bearing in mind you only have a 27 day window of opportunity to do this, what I am proposing in this thread is that I take an interventionist role as a (newbie) moderator and moderate out negative attacks on other members (which are irrelevant to Nominet) and you work together to build models that could actually work (you probably won't all agree on one single model, and that's fine of course).
But frankly, if there's one time for people here to work together, it's probably now - constructively, and with clear thinking.
Now you may understandably argue that Nominet has already decided on an outcome and all this consultation is window-dressing. That could of course be the case, but I'm not so sure. I've had several conversations by phone and video link and email with Nominet people over the past 7 months, and my impression is that they really are undecided and want mature advice, drawing on the experience of people who use and understand the processes.
I suspect the auction model may have a lead with them, simply because it's not that complex or hard to implement. If you like, it's the easy way out, once you conclude that the system as it was, was unravelling out of control. But I'm not convinced they have decided on outcomes yet, and what's really needed to protect people's livelihoods is methodology about how to make a workable process where the rules can be enforced.
I can't contribute a great deal, except to moderate out personal abuse (which is wholly unconstructive), because I am not a 'catcher' myself. I buy domains off catchers - off several of you here. And besides, I want to listen and learn.
There seem to be two starting points, if you discount the auction:
Model A: You take the proposal that Nominet has made for a future name catching system, and you adjust it, with reasoned and convincing arguments, to a fairer and workable model.
Model B: You present really well-developed methodology for keeping the present system in a re-worked set of rules and parameters, which MUST be enforceable, otherwise there'll be no interest in using it. Nominet have gone past that point. It's pretty obvious that they know (as things stand) that the status quo will still be ridden roughshot over.
Model C: You review Nominet's proposed auction model, and consider any adjustments, that contribute to a working auction. [added after people pointed out I shouldn't have omitted this option]
This thread is for Model B - more or less keeping the present system in a re-worked set of parameters.
The deadline for replying to Nominet's consultation on dropping domains is Friday 14th August, with a web discussion on the Tuesday of that week. And then that's it... over to Nominet to decide.
We already have an 8-page thread on the news release, but that's more of a reaction thread, with plenty of negativity about Nominet (which anyone can understand in the circumstances), but sadly also quite a lot of infighting and name-calling which is totally unproductive.
I watched the way recently this community worked collaboratively with Lazarus to help develop flip.uk, and that was really productive, so I am wondering if the same could be done with people working together to develop one or more models to present to Nominet.
To achieve that, and bearing in mind you only have a 27 day window of opportunity to do this, what I am proposing in this thread is that I take an interventionist role as a (newbie) moderator and moderate out negative attacks on other members (which are irrelevant to Nominet) and you work together to build models that could actually work (you probably won't all agree on one single model, and that's fine of course).
But frankly, if there's one time for people here to work together, it's probably now - constructively, and with clear thinking.
Now you may understandably argue that Nominet has already decided on an outcome and all this consultation is window-dressing. That could of course be the case, but I'm not so sure. I've had several conversations by phone and video link and email with Nominet people over the past 7 months, and my impression is that they really are undecided and want mature advice, drawing on the experience of people who use and understand the processes.
I suspect the auction model may have a lead with them, simply because it's not that complex or hard to implement. If you like, it's the easy way out, once you conclude that the system as it was, was unravelling out of control. But I'm not convinced they have decided on outcomes yet, and what's really needed to protect people's livelihoods is methodology about how to make a workable process where the rules can be enforced.
I can't contribute a great deal, except to moderate out personal abuse (which is wholly unconstructive), because I am not a 'catcher' myself. I buy domains off catchers - off several of you here. And besides, I want to listen and learn.
There seem to be two starting points, if you discount the auction:
Model A: You take the proposal that Nominet has made for a future name catching system, and you adjust it, with reasoned and convincing arguments, to a fairer and workable model.
Model B: You present really well-developed methodology for keeping the present system in a re-worked set of rules and parameters, which MUST be enforceable, otherwise there'll be no interest in using it. Nominet have gone past that point. It's pretty obvious that they know (as things stand) that the status quo will still be ridden roughshot over.
Model C: You review Nominet's proposed auction model, and consider any adjustments, that contribute to a working auction. [added after people pointed out I shouldn't have omitted this option]
This thread is for Model B - more or less keeping the present system in a re-worked set of parameters.
Last edited:
