EU prior rights

[grandin]

see my other thread

I will buy lunch

Lee

 

[Beasty]

10% is a pretty poor return for an "information technology services" company when registration is electronic

I agree - not a VC type return when there is considerable risk attached. However if one were guaranteed a profit since the market is certain (and growing - so profits should rise with economy of scale) then it looks pretty tempting to me - particularly if all overheads have already been taken out - perhaps taking a slice at that stage as well, one way or another. As you suggest, teh cost base is high for something that has at its core a pretty simple (but important) function.

Put it another way - if a bank offered a 10%+ return guaranteed with no risk to capital - rising with any increase in the size of the target market - they'd have plenty of takers in no time.

Either way, can we all agree that Nominet is a profit making business - not a not-for-profit one.

 

[aqls]

It is a healthy surplus - one that will hopefully determine that my domain renewal price will decrease.

If we maintain that Nominet is a not for profit organisation then that pressure will continue to be downwards.

A for profit organisation would undoubtedly be happy charging more.

I am happier in denial.

-aqls-

 

[Beasty]

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/toolsToHelp/productPriceListCompare.shtml

Job creation scheme. Political plaything. Tax revenue source.

Bloody expensive and full of unnecessary admin.

Out of date IT.

Nominet shines in solid gold in comparison, with added platinum bits.

BTW I don't care how much Nominet staff earn provided they keep my objectives in hand.

-aqls-

Complex and important records to keep and also to check/verify.

Cost neutral and (for what it does) good value.

Agree - legacy IT - but that is a function more of something that has been going for a long time than any fault I'd say.

The more you pay the staff, the more the service costs if it is cost neutral. Of course, if you want execs who are going to take Nominet on to be a commercial business - competing elsewhere and keeping .uk registrations in their back pocket for insurance - then yes pay that sort of money to get the right people. Mind you, if they organise a meeting that essentially needs the agreement of 3 parties - and 2 of them vote the other way - I might question how good the current incumbents are...

 

[Beasty]

It is a healthy surplus - one that will hopefully determine that my domain renewal price will decrease.

If we maintain that Nominet is a not for profit organisation then that pressure will continue to be downwards.

A for profit organisation would undoubtedly be happy charging more.

I am happier in denial.

-aqls-

When did prices last decrease?

 

[olebean]

It is a healthy surplus - one that will hopefully determine that my domain renewal price will decrease.

If we maintain that Nominet is a not for profit organisation then that pressure will continue to be downwards.

A for profit organisation would undoubtedly be happy charging more.

I am happier in denial.

-aqls-

Aqls

I agree there are downward pressures, in the short to medium term... What about system replacement upgrade costs, invariably these as with any software / hardware replacement, will not come cheap.. If within annual budgets there is an ongoing upgrade process then I would agree there seems scope for change

 

[sneezycheese]

I will buy lunch

…A very kind offer, gratefully accepted.

 

[Jac]

JAC - Firstly, I readily accept your kind invitation to Oxford.

I'll make some enquiries as to times available.

I said the TWO top execs get paid over £400K - a little over £250K for the Exec Chair and £150K for the Chief Exec. The Chair did leave during the year (the latest with published figures) and was paid something over £50K to go - so one assumes it was not voluntary.

Firstly, I agree with aqls on this one. He wrote: "I don't care how much Nominet staff earn provided they keep my objectives in hand". As an aside, when you consider the going rate for golden handshakes to exiting Chairmen in the private sector, I'd say 50k seems low; and IMO when you consider that without Dr Black there probably wouldn't have been a Nominet in the first place, I'd say he deserved more.

I don't know what the current Chair is paid - but looking at his CV my guess would be that (pro rata if he is part time) he is unlikely to be paid less than Dr Black. You are on the PAB - so doubtless you are in the know.

Why are you so obsessed with what other people get paid Beasty? The market dictates what employees, management, and executives are worth. If you pay peanuts don't be surprised if you get monkeys. You have to pay good money to get good people. Industry is a competitive arena.

As an aside, the last time I checked, the going rate for a part-time Chair in the private sector was around £60k a year; that's if you want a good one and not some past their 'sell by date' burn-out but I don't actually know (or care) what the new Chair is paid as long as he does what aqls suggests and looks after the 'objectives in hand' (and as long as it is commensurate with comparable positions).

Companies House (and the Patent Office) are much bigger in terms of turnover and headcount. They undertake more complex tasks than maintaining a first-come-first-served database where the tag holders enter much of the data. Their highest paid execs are on a touch under £100K the last time I looked.

The tasks you suggest Companies House undertake are daily, monthly, or yearly tasks, and ones that any professional should become adept at in a relatively short time. IMO, it doesn't take over 1,000 staff to handle 2,000,000 company registrations even including the filing of company documents. As aqls pointed out, they have outdated IT which needs updating and if they updated their computer systems they'd undoubtedly become more efficient. Conversely; why you think Nominet's only task is to handle a FCFS database is beyond me. Nominet receives a mass of phone calls, letters, emails and other correspondence daily from user registrants, businesses and worldwide bodies. They also spend a lot of time meeting with members at various functions, going overseas on behalf of the UK Community (to ICANN and other internet related meetings); they have constant dialogue and meetings with government, trade and consumer bodies, individuals, stakeholder groups, and still have to put up with people like me constantly bitching at them about one thing or another. Oh, and they handle 5,000,000 registrations with about 130 staff and that's before we get to the DRS cases they handle each month (at the informal stage).

So let's compare: 2 million with 1,000 staff, 5 million with 130 staff. The fact is, the private sector has always been more efficient and cost conscious than government led agencies because the motivations are different. There are less opportunities to reach your Peter Principle in private enterprise.

Will you please accept that Nominet is a profit making business? I agree it does not (and can not) directly distribute its profits - but that is not the same thing. A million plus a year on a ten million turn over - having taken out generous remuneration packages - is not too shabby!

You're winding me up, right? Or are you really just misrepresenting the proprieties of "not for profit" as it pertains to business and company law? Even Charities make a profit in the course of their businesses, but not for profit companies are value-driven; they are primarily motivated by the desire to further social, environmental, cultural or community objectives rather than make a profit per se; and they principally reinvest surpluses to further their social, environmental, cultural or community objectives.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Beasty]

Beasty you seem to be switched on with this ip law (which I am not....all i do is follow common sense).

So Beasty.....if you read through the Nominet Dispute Resolution Policy it states

'3. Evidence of Abusive Registration

a. A non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration is as follows:'

ie. 3a of the policy uses the word may! So if the average domain name owner is not to rely on what is written in the policy then what has he got to rely on? Does he have to read through all the previous drs cases to find out that 3aia of the policy was incorrectly stated? if so then the contract is over 3 million words long.....if the contract is over 3 million words long do you think that person could claim that the Nominet contract as an unfair contract?

Hypothetical of course
Lee

Lee, for a self proclaimed simple man you ask a very interesting and none too simple questions. You are quite right that the list is "non-exclusive" and is only indicative - the word "may" has been identified by a number of Experts to enable them to decide whether to apply a finding of fact or not.

An example where the list has been effectively expanded is 3(a)(ii) - confusion - which as stated requires evidence of actual confusion, but in practice experts are happy to rely on the inference of the likelyhood of it in the absence of evidence.

What's more "may" also appears in in Paragraph 4 - essentially the defences. So you "may" show that a defence applies in a case - but the Expert "may" choose whether to be bound by it.

In say the TM Act/Directive there is far greater certainty as to what is or is not either an infingment or a defence. The debate then focuses on whether or not they exist in the particular case. Part of the reason for that is that it is important to allow third parties to have certainty about whether or not they are infringing - especially where someone is being given a limited monopoly on the use of a word or device - even if it is within a particular field of activity. The Barbie and Veuve Cliquot cases in Canada found on another thread show the type of balance that must exist.

The DRS Decisions probably don't fall into the contract in my view - though it's an amusing thought! However in practice if you are DRSed, then knowlege of how Experts have adopted the wording is essential and not that readily collated - certainly when you only have 15 working days to respond to what might well be a detailed Complaint. So from a practical point of view they do...now you've got me going round in circles!

 

[Jac]

I agree - not a VC type return when there is considerable risk attached. However if one were guaranteed a profit since the market is certain (and growing - so profits should rise with economy of scale) then it looks pretty tempting to me - particularly if all overheads have already been taken out - perhaps taking a slice at that stage as well, one way or another. As you suggest, teh cost base is high for something that has at its core a pretty simple (but important) function.

Put it another way - if a bank offered a 10%+ return guaranteed with no risk to capital - rising with any increase in the size of the target market - they'd have plenty of takers in no time.

Either way, can we all agree that Nominet is a profit making business - not a not-for-profit one.

You are still missing the point about a not for pofit company. Ideally it shouldn't make a profit at all, so whether you talk about 10%, 5%, or 0%, it is actually irrelevant when the company is mandated not to make a profit in the first place.

Your comment about the cost base being high for a pretty simple function is a tad naive Beasty. There is nothing simple about running a domain name registry on a day to day basis. Whilst it may/might be a pretty simple task to run any business (once you have the expertise) the reality of it dictates, that about 50% (or more) of your day is taken up with issues that actually make you very little return at all. The old 80/20 rule seems apt: that 80% of your business will come from 20% of your customers (the rest are just 'window shopping'). Kinda like the old advertising adage that says; no matter what you do you will always lose 50% of your advertising revenue.... you just don't know where!

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Beasty]

You are still missing the point about a not for pofit company. Ideally it shouldn't make a profit at all, so whether you talk about 10%, 5%, or 0%, it is actually irrelevant when the company is mandated not to make a profit in the first place.

Your comment about the cost base being high for a pretty simple function is a tad naive Beasty. There is nothing simple about running a domain name registry on a day to day basis. Whilst it may/might be a pretty simple task to run any business (once you have the expertise) the reality of it dictates, that about 50% (or more) of your day is taken up with issues that actually make you very little return at all. The old 80/20 rule seems apt: that 80% of your business will come from 20% of your customers (the rest are just 'window shopping'). Kinda like the old advertising adage that says; no matter what you do you will always lose 50% of your advertising revenue.... you just don't know where!

Regards
James Conaghan

Firstly, if you are mandated not to make a profit - then stop making a profit when you have a cash pile of about £6 million in the bank. Should not be too hard. However the Nominet Exec wants to be free to make more profit if the EGM resolutions were anything to go by - they even wanted to be able to put prices UP more easily.

Secondly, the core function of maintaining a domain registry when most of the data comes to you from TAG holders is not that tough. Add customer service (which I have always found to be excellent) and "political" representation abroad/at home; and also a basic legal function. Now do you limit yourself to the core function - or do you add more to it - e.g. the DRS, then greater commercial freedom etc. That is the question that is currently being asked. We know what those on the inside want - they told us at the EGM.

It's an understandable point of view - but misses the point of what is Nominet? Is it a simple monopoly providing a "social" function? Or is it a great opportuity to expand and develop - based on a sure fire winner of a reputation, with cash in the bank and more guaranteed each year? Or is it something else?

That's why I am concerned about salaries etc.. Not what they are, but rather the mentality that I think they exemplify. I'll take a closer look at Companies House and a few big charities tonight (when I'm not working!) - so will take a rain check on those detailed comparisions you make until later.

 

[grandin]

more circles

Old icann will send you in more circles if you read their equivalent clause..says that an expert can base the decision on whatever......very accountable.

I think simple....I think can an average person understand this...........with this domain name rights issue.....they cannot....so how can domain names be bought or sold without legal representation.......we all know that legal representation is not an option when buying a £10 domain name...BUT you cannot expect Mr or Mrs Average to act as a Trade Mark Attorney before using his domain name..........if you applied a common sense rule then it would be fair...........common sense would say...yes Mr Smith you are selling mints on your website polo.eu....dont you think thats naughty!! BUT its unfair to apply this common sense rule if on the other hand the rules in themselves don't make sense..........Prior rights in generic words.....what a load of cra.

Lets take this decision on GHD.co.uk........... The three experts said.....if I had offered to sell the domain name to a competitor then I would be the naughty one and I should lose the domain name............hold on its not me that would have infringed.........i didnt offer it to a competitor because I thought why would they want it (someoneelse may have accidentally thought differently)??? the competitor is the potential infringer!!!!!

I think this barbie case reinforces that an unused domain name is a non threat and no matter how big the brand no action can be taken until someones action creates a potential threat.....name on its own is a non threat

Lee

 

[grandin]

more on barbie

I think this barbie case reinforces that an unused domain name is a non threat and no matter how big the brand no action can be taken until someones action creates a potential threat.....name on its own is a non threat

adding to this.....

did both contenders of rights to barbie have trade marks?

if not....then clearly the law has said that Trade Mark holders do not have higher rights over other rights.....meaning the directive concerning .eu wasnt based on law....they gave the highest right to trade mark holders

Lee

 

[Beasty]

Old icann will send you in more circles if you read their equivalent clause..says that an expert can base the decision on whatever......very accountable.

I think simple....I think can an average person understand this...........with this domain name rights issue.....they cannot....so how can domain names be bought or sold without legal representation.......we all know that legal representation is not an option when buying a £10 domain name...BUT you cannot expect Mr or Mrs Average to act as a Trade Mark Attorney before using his domain name..........if you applied a common sense rule then it would be fair...........common sense would say...yes Mr Smith you are selling mints on your website polo.eu....dont you think thats naughty!! BUT its unfair to apply this common sense rule if on the other hand the rules in themselves don't make sense..........Prior rights in generic words.....what a load of cra.

Lets take this decision on GHD.co.uk........... The three experts said.....if I had offered to sell the domain name to a competitor then I would be the naughty one and I should lose the domain name............hold on its not me that would have infringed.........i didnt offer it to a competitor because I thought why would they want it (someoneelse may have accidentally thought differently)??? the competitor is the potential infringer!!!!!

I think this barbie case reinforces that an unused domain name is a non threat and no matter how big the brand no action can be taken until someones action creates a potential threat.....name on its own is a non threat

Lee

Part of the problem with trying to deal with a domain name using traditional TM and passing off is that - by definition - there is only one domain available with each extenstion - say polo.eu - hence the problem with a number of potential users coming into conflict. Likewise the old debate/trade off of allowing "common" terms to become trademarks - where the limit of a class and the limit of what amounts to infringment balances against the grant of a limited monopoly in a copmmon term - struggles when applied to domains because of the limited number of them that exist. So, as you say, if you grant the use of a common word to one party for a particular use - should that give them an unassailable priority to the domain - which cuts accross any such limits in use and infringment?

However, it is not correct to say that merely selling something to a potential infringer avoids liability. If one does that, one can become a joint tortfeaser with the other party. It is logical, since the sale gives the seller a benefit - which exists only as a result of the planned infringment.

So, to use the example you cite, ghd.co.uk has some intrinsic value as a 3 letter domain. It has more value to GHD - and also to any competitors of theirs. If you got more (from a competitor) than the basic value for the domain simply because of that association, then you would be benefiting from the planned infringment - and so potentially be liable. However, if it were sold to GHD because they want it badly - and you know they want it, so it's worth more than the basic value - then I can't see the problem. You have an asset that has acquired specific value to a third party - a legitimate bonus for you if you like!

 

[aqls]

There should be 46 cctlds for .uk.

one for each trademark category and the .co.uk for us lot.

-aqls-

 

[Jac]

Complex and important records to keep and also to check/verify.

So does Nominet.

Cost neutral and (for what it does) good value.

So is Nominet.

Agree - legacy IT - but that is a function more of something that has been going for a long time than any fault I'd say.

IMO, this is not an excuse in a fast changing technological world; especially when the company relies on its database. If they lose that, 2.2 million companies are in trouble (ne'er mind Companies House).

The more you pay the staff, the more the service costs if it is cost neutral.

This is a non sequitur. The financial crux of a not for profit registry rests on speculation. You speculate how many registrations you think you will achieve if the price is set at X or Y. Nominet calls this the 'spreadsheet from hell' because there is actually no way in the world of judging exactly what a price decrease or increase will do to the turnover of domain names (this is why you have to build in a contingency to any spreadsheet). If the market goes one way you could end up bankrupt, if it goes the other, you could end up with a profit (which is contrary to your not for profit status). Getting the balance right is exactly what Nominet said it is: the spreadsheet from hell.

Of course, if you want execs who are going to take Nominet on to be a commercial business - competing elsewhere and keeping .uk registrations in their back pocket for insurance - then yes pay that sort of money to get the right people.

Ah... now you've hit on another non sequitur. Running a business (any business) has to be done on a commercial basis (even a Charity), but commercial does not always equate to for profit. Commercial simply means running it on commercial principles (commerce, in this instance, being the trading of services between entities). I suppose it could be argued (as I have done myself) that Nominet is not a 'commercial' entity, but it is actually run on the same basis as a commercial for profit company; it is the legal and ethical restrictions on the distribution of profits that separates not for profit companies from truly commercial 'for profit' ones.

Mind you, if they organise a meeting that essentially needs the agreement of 3 parties - and 2 of them vote the other way - I might question how good the current incumbents are...

I have no idea what that refers to.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[aqls]

There should be 46 cctlds for .uk.

one for each trademark category and the .co.uk for us lot.

-aqls-

only joking [tin hat]

-aqls-

 

[olebean]

the spreadsheet from hell.

It exists in any business/ organisation etc etc I agree it is a multi dimensional financial analysis, however, forcasting and coralating between the variables is easy to model. Given that nominets revenues and profits have fluctuated over the last four year period, but, considering total domains registered at an all time high, it would be unlikely that a marginal change in the short term would cause significant and irreparable damage to the company (just to the rep of the decision makers)...

 

[olebean]

only joking [tin hat]

-aqls-

Aqls


That is bad :-D keep it up son!

OB

 

[Beasty]

So does Nominet.

No they don't and they only have one type of data to store - not returns, accounts, changes of details, mortgages etc.

So is Nominet.

No - it makes £1 million a year (and rising) and has £6 million in the bank.

IMO, this is not an excuse in a fast changing technological world; especially when the company relies on its database. If they lose that, 2.2 million companies are in trouble (ne'er mind Companies House).

As i said above - I don't have the time now to take a detailed look at Companies House's system - but I don't think anyone was suggesting they are about to lose their database!

This is a non sequitur. The financial crux of a not for profit registry rests on speculation. You speculate how many registrations you think you will achieve if the price is set at X or Y. Nominet calls this the 'spreadsheet from hell' because there is actually no way in the world of judging exactly what a price decrease or increase will do to the turnover of domain names (this is why you have to build in a contingency to any spreadsheet). If the market goes one way you could end up bankrupt, if it goes the other, you could end up with a profit (which is contrary to your not for profit status). Getting the balance right is exactly what Nominet said it is: the spreadsheet from hell.

I did not refer to the cost of domains - I refered to the cost of the staff. If you pay a big % of your turnover to top execs - and your aim is to balance the books - then that adds to the top line. Now, if you need to pay them to do that job - fair enough. But if others are doing similar or harder jobs at least as well - for a lot less money - then someone ought to ask questions.

Ah... now you've hit on another non sequitur. Running a business (any business) has to be done on a commercial basis (even a Charity), but commercial does not always equate to for profit. Commercial simply means running it on commercial principles (commerce, in this instance, being the trading of services between entities). I suppose it could be argued (as I have done myself) that Nominet is not a 'commercial' entity, but it is actually run on the same basis as a commercial for profit company; it is the legal and ethical restrictions on the distribution of profits that separates not for profit companies from truly commercial 'for profit' ones.

Not at all - that's what the EGM motions were about.

I have no idea what that refers to.

The EGM!