EU prior rights

[grandin]

tag holder

So I could apply to nominet to be a tag holder to hold my own portfolio?

Lee

 

[Jac]

So I could apply to nominet to be a tag holder to hold my own portfolio?

Lee

Lee

I have PM'd you with some info which I hope is useful.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[aqls]

Yes, Lee. For what it's worth.

You will have the added cost of Nominet membership (approx £500) and the cost of software to run the domains using encrypted pgp emails with different messages for different transactions.

You will have to spend your own time administering them with no easy email to your registrant to change a tag or registration.

However, you will gain a reduction in renewal fees to Nominet's £5 per two years.

It's not all roses.

(oh and you can get a worthless vote at Numbnuts' next meeting).

-aqls-

 

[Beasty]

Beasty

For the sake of fair play I feel compelled to point out an anomaly in your argument.

To say that Nominet is the only place a consumer can buy a .uk domain is technically incorrect. You can buy a .uk domain name from the 2,900+ active Nominet members and/or the 3,900 active tag holders. This is where the competition is in .uk domain names; between the members and tag holders; just as the competition in company names is between the agents who offer off the shelf companies and value added services. (Of course, you can save money by doing it yourself with Companies House or Nominet.)

Regards
James Conaghan

Firstly, Nominet is the only place a consumer can get a .uk domain - whether they get it direct or via an agent - there is still only one .uk supplier in town.

But JAC you make a very interesting point - but I think you may be looking at it the wrong way round. In reality Nominet charges consumers and most businesses £80 + VAT to register a domain direct - the £5 figure you quote is only available to Nominet members - who in turn have to pay £500 in year one and then £100 per annum for that privelege.

Imagine if it were cheaper to go to a company formation agent, patent attorney or solicitor than it was to go to Companies House or the Patent Office directly. It would be outrageous!

The truth is Nominet has created a cartel of members who are at an advantage to the population at large when accessing .uk domain registrations. There may be competition between members of that cartel - but that is not the same as genuine open competition.

Using Gordon's grocery analogy - let us imagine that I want to buy some beans. Nominet is like Heinz - except that in this analogy only Heinz are allowed to make beans - so if I want beans I have to buy Heinz beans. Now Heinz says if I want to buy their beans direct I have to pay £80 a tin. However if I pay a premium of £500, I can have them for £5. So shopkeepers are effectively forced to pay the premium - but in turn have a liberal spread between £5 and £80 to charge consumers - who effectively have to go to one of the "member" shops as it does not make sense to go direct and they can not go anywhere else.

I doubt the OFT would sit on their hands for so long if that was happening in groceries - in fact they are looking with suspicion at a much more open system!

As for the need to be seen to be beyond reproach on how it conducts its business, its the fact that it has a captive (and growing) market that should impose that duty. Again using Gordon's analogy, if Tesco went around awarding uncompetitive contracts without a care in the world, it would soon be overtaken by Sainsbury's etc.. Who is going to take .uk market share from Nominet if it is careless? As long as it is not so careless that it starts to make a loss (it has 6 years current profit sitting in the bank already anyway) or fails to perform its function - who would notice?

 

[aqls]

The truth is Nominet has created a cartel of members who are at an advantage to the population at large when accessing .uk domain registrations. There may be competition between members of that cartel - but that is not the same as genuine open competition.

Not sure about that one Beasty!

Firstly, some of the members offer domains more or less as cheap as Nominet without any further ado.

Secondly, I'm not sure it's the membership price that is the main restriction. I think it is dwarfed by the enormous amount of software development any member needs to undertake in order to fulfill their obligations of being able to change tags, renew, autorenew etc for their potential customers.

That said, I think membership and renewal fees as high as they are, are unnecessary burdens.

As for profit. I would like to see it put to good use i.e.
i) cheaper domains
ii) more secure domains

-aqls-

 

[Beasty]

Not sure about that one Beasty!

Firstly, some of the members offer domains more or less as cheap as Nominet without any further ado.

Secondly, I'm not sure it's the membership price that is the main restriction. I think it is dwarfed by the enormous amount of software development any member needs to undertake in order to fulfill their obligations of being able to change tags, renew, autorenew etc for their potential customers.

That said, I think membership and renewal fees as high as they are, are unnecessary burdens.

As for profit. I would like to see it put to good use i.e.
i) cheaper domains
ii) more secure domains

-aqls-

There are indeed domains on offer through some registrars at or around Nominet's fee. However since those companies make a profit, I'm guessing they do it to get a cyber "footfall" - and then aim to sell value add services on top to make their profits.

I'm interested to hear aqls that you think the software etc. is more of a hassle than the fee - since I'm not a tagholder that was something I had no knowlege of. However I also think a fee of £500 upfront is pretty offputting of itself, especially if you're only going to register one or a few domains.

 

[Jac]

Firstly, Nominet is the only place a consumer can get a .uk domain - whether they get it direct or via an agent - there is still only one .uk supplier in town.

As I have said repeatedly, I personally believe each Registry is a natural monopoly in its own right; because .eu can only be sourced at euRID, .com at Verisign, and .uk at Nominet. The Law tells me there is nothing wrong with being a natural monopoly as long as you trade within the pre-set expectations (i.e. legislation).

But JAC you make a very interesting point - but I think you may be looking at it the wrong way round. In reality Nominet charges consumers and most businesses £80 + VAT to register a domain direct - the £5 figure you quote is only available to Nominet members - who in turn have to pay £500 in year one and then £100 per annum for that privelege.

This may be a controversial viewpoint, but here's what I think. I personally do not believe it is the job of a domain name registry to sell direct to the end user. My viewpoint on this is borne out by the registrants I speak to, some of whom have been confused into going direct to Nominet to pay £80 + Vat instead of asking their tag holder to do it for a (usually) much reduced renewal fee. This does indeed happen, though thankfully not often. The anomaly then is this; if the registrant bypasses the tag holder/hosting company in the process, it could legitimately be argued by said tag holder/hosting company that they now have no SLA (service level agreement) with the registrant and the registrant should pay an administration charge to stay on their nameservers. This also happens. (I am not arguing the rights and wrongs, just that these things happen.)

Imagine if it were cheaper to go to a company formation agent, patent attorney or solicitor than it was to go to Companies House or the Patent Office directly. It would be outrageous!

Even if Nominet sold domain names direct to you for a fiver, you would still need the infrastructure (as in dns server and expertise) to make it all work and the technical support to ensure it continued to work. Nominet does not currently offer dns or value added services and if it did, the costs would have to be proportionally higher anyway.

The truth is Nominet has created a cartel of members who are at an advantage to the population at large when accessing .uk domain registrations. There may be competition between members of that cartel - but that is not the same as genuine open competition.

I think you need to rethink this cartel allegation. Cartels per se are illegal and simply would not be allowed to exist within the UK.

As for the need to be seen to be beyond reproach on how it conducts its business, its the fact that it has a captive (and growing) market that should impose that duty. Again using Gordon's analogy, if Tesco went around awarding uncompetitive contracts without a care in the world, it would soon be overtaken by Sainsbury's etc.. Who is going to take .uk market share from Nominet if it is careless? As long as it is not so careless that it starts to make a loss (it has 6 years current profit sitting in the bank already anyway) or fails to perform its function - who would notice?

I honestly can't see this uncompetitive contract comparison. Nominet 'awards' a contract to each and every body who applies to become a member or tag holder. The terms are the same and each Tag Holder has the same obligations under the Tag Holder Agreement. Whether the tag holder is a multi-million pound corporation or a sole-trader, the contract is competitive. It is up to each individual tag holder to be competitive too in their own field of expertise. Nominet does not dictate business models to any of them. Where's the uncompetitive contract?

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Beasty]

I honestly can't see this uncompetitive contract comparison. Nominet 'awards' a contract to each and every body who applies to become a member or tag holder. The terms are the same and each Tag Holder has the same obligations under the Tag Holder Agreement. Whether the tag holder is a multi-million pound corporation or a sole-trader, the contract is competitive. It is up to each individual tag holder to be competitive too in their own field of expertise. Nominet does not dictate business models to any of them. Where's the uncompetitive contract?

Regards
James Conaghan

I'll come back to the rest later JAC - but we seem to be at cross purposes here. The contracts in question were - referring back in the thread - to any that Nominet grants to suppliers etc. - not ones that they issue to Tag Holders.

Those contracts in my view should be subject to the same scrutiny as government contracts, where eg. "large" contracts have to be put out to open tender within the EU and a transparent process followed as to how they are awarded.

Gordon thinks that Nominet should be allowed to do whatever it likes and drew an analogy with Tesco. I said they should not because they face no real competition - and said that whereas if eg. Tesco were careless with the contracts they award then they would suffer in comparison to their competition; so Nominet can suffer no such market scrutiny, as they have no competition.

 

[Jac]

I'll come back to the rest later JAC - but we seem to be at cross purposes here. The contracts in question were - referring back in the thread - to any that Nominet grants to suppliers etc. - not ones that they issue to Tag Holders.

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Those contracts in my view should be subject to the same scrutiny as government contracts, where eg. "large" contracts have to be put out to open tender within the EU and a transparent process followed as to how they are awarded.

Gordon thinks that Nominet should be allowed to do whatever it likes and drew an analogy with Tesco. I said they should not because they face no real competition - and said that whereas if eg. Tesco were careless with the contracts they award then they would suffer in comparison to their competition; so Nominet can suffer no such market scrutiny, as they have no competition.

It is my understanding that any contracts Nominet grants to suppliers are sought competitively. IE: Nominet seeks competitive quotations from a range of suppliers (as indeed, any competitive business would). Nominet is a private company limited by guarantee and not a public service per se, but I would suggest the board has a fiduciary duty in any case, to ensure their subcontractors or suppliers are supplying competitively.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Beasty]

It is my understanding that any contracts Nominet grants to suppliers are sought competitively. IE: Nominet seeks competitive quotations from a range of suppliers (as indeed, any competitive business would). Nominet is a private company limited by guarantee and not a public service per se, but I would suggest the board has a fiduciary duty in any case, to ensure their subcontractors or suppliers are supplying competitively.

I think Nominet is BOTH a private company limited by guarantee AND a provider of a public service. Unlike the vast majority of providers of public services, I can not check directly using FOIA what processes it follows; and I know that it expressly does not follow the EU purchasing regulations requiring open tender processes to be followed. So it seems one has to rely on the scrutiny of the board - who are accountable only to the members, whose interests are not the same as "typical" shareholders seeking to maximise profits. I can not see why such things should be left to chance.

 

[gordon]

Hardly. I have a choice of where to buy groceries - there is (though its being investigated by the OFT) at least some level of choice - even if it's largely between the big supermarkets. Nominet is the only place a consumer can buy a .uk domain - just as the Patent Office is the only place they can get a trade mark, patent or registered design; or Companies House is the only place they can register a company.

But Tesco is the only place I can buy my Tesco branded food. A little like those other domains.

Gordon

 

[gordon]

Gordon thinks that Nominet should be allowed to do whatever it likes and drew an analogy with Tesco.

Beasty,

Please don't tell me what I think. That is not what I said.

Gordon

 

[Whois-Search]

I'm still waiting for a Nominet ClubCard........

 

[grandin]

no points

I have no club card points

lee

 

[Beasty]

But Tesco is the only place I can buy my Tesco branded food. A little like those other domains.

Gordon

No - because the "other" domains do not compete with .uk - unlike say Saisbury's, ASDA, Waitrose, not to mention food produced by branded companies that is sold in countless outlets.

It is clear that .fr, .de etc. DO NOT compete with .uk - they exist in parallel markets. They are not interchangable - if you are promoting a business in the UK then another country's domain extension is no use (except maybe special cases such as .tv)

Even .com, .net and .eu do not in truth compete with .uk. Any company with a domain strategy worth its salt operating in the UK will seek both the .uk and the .com if at all possible - and it would seem also the .eu judging from the figures. That's the equivalent of a shopper going first to Tesco, then to Sainsbury's, then ASDA etc. and making an identical purchase in each store.

This was touched upon when the OFT reported on the .scot question:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/39DA216D-B356-4893-802B-B00241A4BDF8/0/april2003.pdf at page 4

Even if you include all other domain extensions in the "market" in the way that you want, .uk retains a dominant market share that would be very difficult to tolerate if it were eg. a supermarket. So by any measure competition is distorted and fails to provide the brake that you suggest on either abusive behaviour re. consumers; or requiring best practice in other areas to survive the threat of vigorous competition.

 

[Beasty]

Beasty,

Please don't tell me what I think. That is not what I said.

Gordon

You made the following statement earlier in the thread at #215:

I think that is a rather strange definition of "public" money. Does that mean you would also define Tesco as spending "public" money?

I took that as your saying Nominet's funds were not public funds and that there was no distinction to be drawn between Nominet and Tesco (or any other company) in terms of corporate governance and the need for public scrutiny.

So as long as they did not step outside the confines of company law, I took it that you were saying that Nominet could do whatever they want. If that's not what you meant, I apologise for misunderstanding you; and await your clarification of what you did mean.

If you are the Gordon on the Nominet Board, perhaps you could also flesh out what JAC alluded to earlier about the level of scrutiny that the Board puts the Executive under when 6 figure contracts are awarded; and how transparent that scrutiny is and has been historically.

 

[Whois-Search]

"The French domain Dot FR, currently open to companies, organizations and holders of trademarks valid in France, will be open for individuals starting with June 20th at 9 am, thanks to AFNIC and EuroDNS. Only two conditions for eligibility: to be over 18 years old and able to provide an address in France."

http://www.domaininformer.com/news/press/060619EuroDNSSA.html

 

[gordon]

I took that as your saying Nominet's funds were not public funds and that there was no distinction to be drawn between Nominet and Tesco (or any other company) in terms of corporate governance and the need for public scrutiny.

No it was actually an attempt to understand what made you believe they were public funds that Nominet controls, I'm still none the wiser and you don't appear to be explaining, so I'll leave you to your own views on this.

My quip with regards to Tesco brand products came with a smiley for a reason.

So as long as they did not step outside the confines of company law, I took it that you were saying that Nominet could do whatever they want. If that's not what you meant, I apologise for misunderstanding you; and await your clarification of what you did mean.

I think all companies have a responsibility to their stakeholders to do more than just comply with the law but to work for their stakeholders (and not just shareholders/members).

what JAC alluded to earlier about the level of scrutiny that the Board puts the Executive under when 6 figure contracts are awarded; and how transparent that scrutiny is and has been historically.

I'm fairly sure Jac can speak for himself so as I do not know what detailed post you are alluding to I will leave it for him to answer you with regards to what he was alluding to.

Gordon

 

[aqls]

I'm interested to hear aqls that you think the software etc. is more of a hassle than the fee - since I'm not a tagholder that was something I had no knowlege of. However I also think a fee of £500 upfront is pretty offputting of itself, especially if you're only going to register one or a few domains.

I'll leave that to your fishing expedition - I don't want to add any more grist to your mill of trying to hand Numbnuts to the sesspit of government

I want
a) cheaper domains
b) more secure domains

-aqls-

 

[Beasty]

No it was actually an attempt to understand what made you believe they were public funds that Nominet controls, I'm still none the wiser and you don't appear to be explaining, so I'll leave you to your own views on this.

People who want a .uk domain HAVE to pay Nominet for it - they have no choice. 5 million and rising have done so. It is a a uniquely priveleged position for a private company - as it is fulfilling a public function without competition and without being held responsible in the way that comparable agencies (eg. patent office) are scrutinised. So Nominet is GUARANTEED millions of pounds a year income from consumers and businesses registering/renewing .uk domains. Hence it holds public money and is in a position of unque trust - without any additional responsibility that usually comes with such a position.

Perhaps you could explain why you don't think it is public money; particularly if (as JAC thinks) you are on the Nominet board.

I think all companies have a responsibility to their stakeholders to do more than just comply with the law but to work for their stakeholders (and not just shareholders/members).

I agree - but they are not obliged to.

I'm fairly sure Jac can speak for himself so as I do not know what detailed post you are alluding to I will leave it for him to answer you with regards to what he was alluding to.

Gordon

There's nothing particularly detailed. JAC simply refered to the fiduciary duty of the board to monitor the awarding of significant contracts - the 6 figure threshold is the one that applies to the EU purchasing regulations that apply to government bodies and agencies. So if you are on the Board, you are better placed than he is to confirm what processes Nominet goes through and historically has gone through.