Is the government coming?

[Blossom]

Sorry, this thread isn't about the direct.uk debate

You mentioned it. I have no idea what this thread is about then, since it started off being based around a Daily Mail article which says nothing at all about the porn industry, but apparently it's not about that either.

...and nor is that the only issue worth talking about to do with Nominet....I think the direct.uk debate, which I do care about and have attended two round-tables about...is one of many issues emanating from problems at the top.

I think this is what you really want this thread to be about, but it started off with far too many irrelevant mentions to other things, possibly because you aren't saying anything new otherwise and had to shoehorn something else in.

In Nominet's defence they don't have to even listen to your proposals and complaints but have given you (everyone) the courtesy of doing so, and continue to do so. If they weren't keen to get it right they wouldn't have delayed it so much, offered two different proposals, allowed for meetings, debates and so on. They don't have to do that, they've chosen to do it.

This is really beginning to feel like you have a personal vendetta that's consuming your entire life and - I'm being judgemental here - but it doesn't strike me as particularly healthy. To be honest I think your time and Emily's time could be much better spent than reiterating the same points on a blog and a forum as you're both clearly intelligent, successful people. I think you'd be a lot happier for it. And I think the risk is, as others have mentioned, that it makes a large subset of the industry look bad.

 

[GreyWing]

Daily Mail? More clicks and ad impressions? Their readership seems to love getting "outraged" when reality fails to align itself with their collective narrow worldview.

I very much doubt those who set this story hare running actually have any interest at all in effecting real change. They just want to kick up a big stink and get people coming back to read updates and mouthe off about it!

It didn't start in the Daily Mail though, it was in the Telegraph or Independent on Sunday. What we are saying is, these stories are often pretext. Minister's don't give give out quotes for no reason..... I can't explain how hard we have tried over the last year to get the Minister to make a comment on anything about Nominet. Then out of the blue he pops up and says something as strongly as he did....

 

[Lucien Taylor]

You're the one who connected it in your opening post! I'm just going with the flow...

Clever. Clever.

I apologise. Yes, I did mention direct.uk in sub clause 86 para. 2

 

[Edwin]

It didn't start in the Daily Mail though, it was in the Telegraph or Independent on Sunday. What we are saying is, these stories are often pretext. Minister's don't give give out quotes for no reason..... I can't explain how hard we have tried over the last year to get the Minister to make a comment on anything about Nominet. Then out of the blue he pops up and says something as strongly as he did....

Brilliant passing of a very hot potato, I'd have thought. Porn regulation. Awkward. Lose/lose no matter what we do/don't do. Hmm, let's make Nominet the focus of attention not the government. Blame passed. Job done.

Occam's razor tells me not to expect a deeper motive than that. After all, there can be few people better at hot potato passing than a politician near the top of their career ladder!

 

[Blossom]

Daily Mail? More clicks and ad impressions? Their readership seems to love getting "outraged" when reality fails to align itself with their collective narrow worldview.

I very much doubt those who set this story hare running actually have any interest at all in effecting real change. They just want to kick up a big stink and get people coming back to read updates and mouthe off about it!

Exactly, and they didn't even mention child porn which is just as important an issue. Domain names in and of themselves have nothing to do with it, whatever the name it can be used for good or evil.

Anyone could rewrite that article and make it about the economic benefits of having so many UK porn sites (obviously legitimate ones rather than rape/child porn etc.).

 

[Edwin]

Clever. Clever.

I apologise. Yes, I did mention direct.uk in sub clause 86 para. 2

And at this point I'll bow out. Why do I keep getting suckered into wasting my time on this?

 

[GreyWing]

You mentioned it. I have no idea what this thread is about then, since it started off being based around a Daily Mail article which says nothing at all about the porn industry, but apparently it's not about that either.

1% of his first post even mentioned .uk, people have focused on it for their own reasons, that's not Lucien's fault.

I think this is what you really want this thread to be about, but it started off with far too many irrelevant mentions to other things, possibly because you aren't saying anything new otherwise and had to shoehorn something else in.

No it's irrelevant to you and maybe a few others because you haven't done the research to understand the importance of it.

In Nominet's defence they don't have to even listen to your proposals and complaints but have given you (everyone) the courtesy of doing so, and continue to do so. If they weren't keen to get it right they wouldn't have delayed it so much, offered two different proposals, allowed for meetings, debates and so on. They don't have to do that, they've chosen to do it.

What on earth are you talking about? Nominet is a company not a group of 9 people who sit on the board. We are members of Nominet, the law says that they have to listen to us.

This is really beginning to feel like you have a personal vendetta that's consuming your entire life and - I'm being judgemental here - but it doesn't strike me as particularly healthy. To be honest I think your time and Emily's time could be much better spent than reiterating the same points on a blog and a forum as you're both clearly intelligent, successful people. I think you'd be a lot happier for it. And I think the risk is, as others have mentioned, that it makes a large subset of the industry look bad.

Yep trouble is they said that to the women at the CQC, they said it to the women who blew the Whistle at Enron and countless other businesses. If arguing for the truth makes Nominet look bad, then guess what.... it is bad!

It's not personal for any of us, for people who think that I just automatically think "poor them".

 

[Nigel]

I think Nominet should be held accountable for the domains it allows to be registered and .uk domains that are used to host depraved sites. If .co.uk domain names are being registered under obscene/depraved/illegal terms then I believe something should be done to stop it. They send millions over to their 'good causes'. It wouldn't cost a lot to have a small team monitoring this.

Shock, horror - we can't possibly police this - some of you might say. Well I think we can and we should.

 

[anthony]

What this thread does highlight, if anyone needed it spelling out, is that Nominet 2013 is not a jot like Nominet 1996. It has lost almost all the effective elements that the membership based organisation was meant to have, but it likes to imply that it still wears 1996 clothing! We all know that being a member is worth s**t all!

There is no 'unpicking' of this to be expected now, and the members are as much to blame as anyone else for letting it happen. I find that Governments generally are lousy at taking responsibility, but legislation can set benchmark requirements that can hurt if needed, and get Ed to do his job properly.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

This is really beginning to feel like you have a personal vendetta that's consuming your entire life and - I'm being judgemental here - but it doesn't strike me as particularly healthy. To be honest I think your time and Emily's time could be much better spent than reiterating the same points on a blog and a forum as you're both clearly intelligent, successful people. I think you'd be a lot happier for it. And I think the risk is, as others have mentioned, that it makes a large subset of the industry look bad.

Yeah, I think a lot of that's fair enough. But don't worry on our part, nothing consumes your life like two years in hospitals and court. This is a piece of cake. If you think the industry looks bad, it's because it is bad. Don't shoot the messenger. We are used to personal attacks and continual speculation about what is or is not good for our health. Although Nominet suggested that Emily should leave the Internet industry, this is her life. This is our life.

 

[Stephen]

UK internet

I think Nominet should be held accountable for the domains it allows to be registered and .uk domains that are used to host depraved sites. If .co.uk domain names are being registered under obscene/depraved/illegal terms then I believe something should be done to stop it. They send millions over to their 'good causes'. It wouldn't cost a lot to have a small team monitoring this.

Shock, horror - we can't possibly police this - some of you might say. Well I think we can and we should.

Agree, if you could trust Nominet to deliver, there are lots of areas they could really improve the UK internet, including the illegal side of the sex industry.

Also would like to see Nominet get involved in consumer internet protection, cheaper SSL certificates for UK businesses, crackdown on spam emails and better security, .

 

[tifosi]

They already are involved in comsumer internet protection. They work and have done in the past with the police to shut down counterfeit sites e.g uggboots.

They can and will have to do more as part of their remit. Maybe they just need a better set of advisors than a few board members with vested interests. It took a bunch of v1 sumbissions to show just how ill thought out the security aspects of direct.uk were. There was no mention of ssl which I think Nominet could/should really get involved in.

Don't think they have a hope in hell of doing anything about spam considering 99.99% of it comes from outside the uk and that Nominet don't govern the infrastructure backbone it travels on.

 

[super-whois]

Don't think they have a hope in hell of doing anything about spam considering 99.99% of it comes from outside the uk and that Nominet don't govern the infrastructure backbone it travels on.

But a significant number say they come from .uk. Wouldn't enforcing a mix of DNSSEC, DKIM and SPF help? Oh, forgot, most of the top 17 don't do these and are still in 1996.

 

[tifosi]

And if you trace the headers they clearly don't. Pretty much all the ones I get are from china and the old eastern block countries.... and don't use .uk domains. ever.

 

[Stephen]

spam prevention

And if you trace the headers they clearly don't. Pretty much all the ones I get are from china and the old eastern block countries.... and don't use .uk domains. ever.

Sorry to get off the track of the thread. But this is what Nominet should be doing.
Spam prevention in UK would overnight improve the lives of all UK web users, that is something Nominet should be aiming to do?

But could not Nominet maintain a spam database of known "headers" and provide this in real-time to the UK registrars to prevent the spam from getting through, so making the UK a world leader in spam prevention?

Or something like that, sorry not to be knowledgeable on the technical issues, but I have found were there is a will, teamwork and a benefit then anything is possible.

p.s. I did advise "spam prevention" as a security issue that Nominet should consider perusing in V1 .uk.

 

[PaulGregory]

Sigh. I asked for one thing I could do. I asked for clarification on what Lucien's point was and said "Please pick one problem that I stand a chance of helping sorting out and I'll have a go." What do I get?

Paul, my point is in my post above. To summarise, Nominet is captured, small businesses and domainers are about to get stuffed, and powerful stakeholders are starting to become active and wind up the government, who should be concerned about a number of issues, not just those that make news headlines. To quote Paul Keating at the AGM, there is a break down in trust between this side of the room and that side of the room.

I share your sense of hopelessness Paul, and with that alone, they've won. I believe that there are many things that you can do to help with this situation for example, write to your MP, write to the top 17? I have done just that this morning, and together with your letters I think that would make a difference.

My chief sense of hopelessness comes from the no-solution spleen-venting not even having a clearly defined problem. It's such a waste of energy.

I know (now) this thread is not saying "porn names is a problem, Nominet should ban 'em". I know it's not even about that. But that's a simple "X is problem, Nominet should do Y". Something anyone can understand, even if X isn't actually a problem, and Y would cause more problems.

The public don't worry much about things they don't understand.

I fully agree that Nominet could be brought down by over-focus on things the public do understand but which are irrelevant to the general operation, such as scandalous names. Many MPs are forced out for something they have said or where they've put their penis, not for incompetence in their role.

If you actually want direct government intervention in Nominet, or at least pre-emptive change caused by MPs persuading the public that something should be done, then yes - write to your MP.

My point is I'm not entirely certain what that letter will say. One problem I asked for. One specific problem. Here's my first draft, based on the problem I can identify in the quote above.

Dear Mrs Blears,

The bigger boys are dominating my playground. Waaah.

Frankly this could come from a number of industries.

 

[GreyWing]

My chief sense of hopelessness comes from the no-solution spleen-venting not even having a clearly defined problem. It's such a waste of energy.

Sorry Paul but this is so wrong. There is so much going on in the background (off the forum), just because it isn't done in the open, doesn't mean it isn't going on. The problems have been defined ages ago, lack of transparency and lack of accountability.

They used to be accountable to members, the job Government thinks (says publically) the members are doing it, we know members can't do that because of the weighted voting, the electioneering bias and cosy dinners with the top 20.

You might not be certain of what a letter to MP's might say, but we are. A letter would to the Government / MP's would be something simple as please force them to be more transparent and please hold them accountable. Listen to members concerns. Bring Nominet before a select committee or similar. That has all been done and the Government has ignored it publically up to now. I'm sorry that you don't follow all this, this has all been done.

I find your quote disrespectful to those of us that have put a lot of work in.

 

[domainseller200]

Yesterday I saw someone dumping piles of leaflets on the side of the road. The leaflets were advertising a business on a .co.uk domain name. Just thought I would post in this thread as I thought it may add something to the .uk debate too.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

Sigh. I asked for one thing I could do. I asked for clarification on what Lucien's point was and said "Please pick one problem that I stand a chance of helping sorting out and I'll have a go." What do I get?

Oh OK Paul, I'll try and figure out something easy for you to do.

 

[PaulGregory]

OK, my assumption that people here understood domain names was misguided.

But could not Nominet maintain a spam database of known "headers" and provide this in real-time to the UK registrars to prevent the spam from getting through, so making the UK a world leader in spam prevention?

Or something like that, sorry not to be knowledgeable on the technical issues, but I have found were there is a will, teamwork and a benefit then anything is possible.

Positive thinking cannae rewrite the rules of The Internet.

To be pedantic and technical, you are confusing web users with internet users, "UK registrars" with UK ISPs, "spam headers" with fingerprints, and "the UK" with the .uk namespace. Oh, and "real-time" with a time machine.

I do not wish Nominet to decide what email gets through and what does not, even if this was feasible or within scope.

Nominet's sole role is as the authoritive source of matching domain names to DNS servers. The DNS servers, in turn, say where the email is.

I can at a stretch agree with Nominet suspending domain names that are being used for Bad Things, but it really isn't their role to make the lives of "UK web users" better.

It would be like merging Companies House and the Mailing Preference Scheme.

But, to give you your due, that was "X is problem, Nominet should do Y" so at least your idea was focused.