Beasty said:
The difficulty with JAC's argument here is that the examples he cites are all government rule making bodies - either central (crimainal sanctions e.g. if you jump a red light or steal something) or local (e.g. parking fines). The one which isn't - train fares - is subject to competition - if you don't like the train fare then take the bus, drive etc.
I don't see the difficulty you see. My point was, that in everything we do, or any system we use, some governing body (whether government or private enterprise) has set the preconditions or ground rules; just as Acorn Domains sets its own ground rules. We can look for the exception to the rule ad infinitum but you will never find Utopia in any system. It doesn't actually matter who sets the rules, the point is, there are always there, and we will always have to abide by them if we wish to use a given system. If you are going to be pedantic about 'competition', then I have to say there is no real competition within the domain name REGISTRY framework because you only have one .com registry, one .eu registry, one .info or .org registry and one .uk registry. A dominant position does not essentially equate to a monopoly. There are many dominant products and they are so because of their very nature.
Microsoft is the only supplier of Windows; Apple is the only supplier of Mac; you cannot get these Operating Sytems from anyone else. Dyson is the only manufacturer/supplier of Dyson; if you want a Dyson you can't get it from any other supplier; it doesn't matter that you can get a Hoover, Electrolux or Dirt Devil; if you want a Dyson you want a Dyson and nothing else will suffice. Similarly, it doesn't matter that you can get a .eu, .com, or .info, if all you want is a .co.uk; the point being, you can only get each from one specific registry.
Beasty said:
Nominet is a private company. It is not directly answerable to anyone other than it's members. The "people" (stakeholders if you like) have no right to have a say.
Beasty, I find this kind of thinking a tad naive when you consider how little real say "the people" have in their local council, their government, or their gas, water and electricity supply. The people do have a say in Nominet but democracy dictates that it is the majority consensus that; when making policy decisions; a community led registry must listen to. I am sure nobody arguing in this thread would suggest their opinion is more worthy than the millions of people who register or use .uk domain names? I have fiercely held views too, some pretty radical, but I have to accept the democratic way of things: the majority rules. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but we are all part of a UK Community (a collective) that extends globally, because other people use the UK domain name system some of us apparently want to restrict to government management (the cynic in me would say
mismanagement).
Beasty said:
I accept that PAB members like JAC and Hazel do seek out varied opinion - and are to be applauded for doing so. However there is no obligation on them to do so - and even when they do the PAB is not the decision making body at Nominet. Even the members are not invited to vote on the executives as far as I am aware. JAC will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they only have an active choice on some non-execs on the "board" and some directly elected members of the PAB.
No, the members do not vote in the Executive but they do have a say in the non-executive appointments. However, all of this is currently under review and the members should have a say in appointed non-executive directors in the future.
Beasty said:
What's more, the general "membership" could never get anything changed without the support of the "Big 3" who hold negative control due to the weighted voting system.
This is also under review and I cannot preempt any changes, but one lives in hope of a less weighted system.
Beasty said:
So - unlike the examples cited - Nominet is alone in setting rules that are not directly answerable to its constituancy/stakeholders. Likewise - uniquely for a private company - there is no alternative suppier available to provide consumers with the choice of voting with their feet.
Personally, I think we are naive to think there is true competition in things like healthcare, broadband, water, gas and electricity services, when to varying degrees these are incestuous business models. Without one, the others probably couldn't exist. (Eg: broadband... all roads lead back to BT.)
You are right, there is no alternate supplier for .co.uk but then there's no alternate supplier for Windows or Mac or Dyson either. The
real competition is not in any domain name registry framework, but in the value added services ISPs or Hosting Companies offer to make your domain name work on the internet.
Beasty said:
For something that was of minimal interest (as it was in 1996) that's not a big deal. For something as cruicial as it is now in 2006 - it is a big deal. Nominet is a lot better than it could be - given its autonomy - and again we should be grateful to those with influence like JAC and Hazel for that. It seems to be a lot better than some of the executive want it to be - judging from the plans set out for the EGM. They have shown their hands.
There are 3 sides to every story; yours, mine and the truth. The board feels they need to be able to react more quickly to market trends/changes, and make crucial day to day decisions without constantly referring to the membership. I have a great deal of sympathy for this viewpoint but only because I believe a company should be able to react swiftly to market changes and correct or increase its own viability with immediate decisions; otherwise, you can easily lose out on great opportunities within hours or days. Lee Grandin made the point that the web is moving too fast; at this point in time Nominet cannot move with it. The balance is in trying to ensure the powers you give a good board today, cannot be abused by a 'bad board' in the future; but that is always a balance in any company, for profit or not. As an aside, I simply cannot see how a government run agency would have the sense of urgency required to react to market forces as enthusiastically as a highly motivated private enterprise would. In that respect, history speaks for itself.
Beasty said:
Now is the time for Government to grasp the nettle - say thanks to those who have got things this far - and bring it under direct control as an executive arm of Government. While doing so it should include domains in the ongoing Gower review of IP law - and draft some direct legislation to cover domain names.
Traditionally, it has always been private enterprise that has grasped the nettle in terms of domain name registries; some of them did it on a capitalistic basis whilst others, like Nominet, did it on a not-for-profit basis. Some have shareholders whilst others, like Nominet, have members. The irony is, had Nominet begun its life as a for profit Verisign style registry, all of this argument would now be academic! That aside; what you are suggesting is that those who had the vision to create a system for the benefit of the people should now hand it over to a government agency who may well regard the concept of freedom of the internet as nothing worth preserving.
Why? To satisfy some misguided sense of righteousness?
A domain name registry in the hands of a government could be as dangerous to our freedoms as identity cards will be... and I hope you protest as much about these tangible injustices as the intangible one you see Nominet as.
I've said it before and here it is again.... be careful what you wish for.
Regards
James Conaghan
[In a very personal capacity]
I am sure you would know....... No doubt there could be a fear of adding fuel to a fire!
