- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Posts
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 374
So what is the worst that can happen in 2007/2008 ?
1. An elected member of the PAB makes one comment on Acorndomains which breaks the PAB code of conduct "2.7 Individual opinion":
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/10984_070108_codeofconduct.pdf
That PAB member then gets a 2.11 "Severe Reprimand".
However unhappy with this the PAB member then starts quoting the Human rights Act and goes to the press.
This then breaks the PAB code of conduct "2.9 Media Attention".
So using the recent PAB rule change 75% of all PAB members decide to expell the member:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/17119_Board_response_-_meeting_48.pdf
However at that PAB meeting 4 elected PAB members are missing because they are stuck on a train (trying to get to the new all-in-one day afternoon meeting). So the majority of the Appointed members expell the elected member.
Then......
2. Due to recent resignations and the elected PAB being expelled..... Nominet decides to implement Hazel's proposal afterall:
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/11737_070102_PAB_Composition.pdf
Nominet decides to have far more appointed members than elected members.
Meanwhile......
The PAB starts looking at the Work Programme for 2007: http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/17117_070228_PAB_work_programme.pdf
3. The PAB recommends the board to accept the "Variable registration periods" policy:
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/17114_070301_Variable_registration.pdf
www.1and1.co.uk then start offering 10 years registrations for £19.90.
Feeling that Nominet will soon raise the registration fees (See Governance Consultation: fees) registrants start buying 10 year renewals like hot cakes.
http://www.nic.uk/governance/consultation/fees/
This indirectly effects dropcatching as all good names become 'future-noms' instead of pre-noms.
Meanwhile the DRS policy is updated and gets appiled to the registrations for 10 years:
http://www.nic.uk/policy/consultations/updatedrs/
4. The PAB then decides to recommend a policy on "domaining".
They recommend Nominet does actually raise the registration fee to £20 for Nominet members.
Also they recommend a quota of 20 names per NEW registrant - ignoring the names people currently own (which become more valuable).
Also they advise all applications made to .org.uk and .me.uk should be 'vetted'.
The board accepts this.......
Then the large Nominet registrars decide to sue Nominet for 'loss of business'. As the number of registrations they are processing at £20 x 20 is vastly different to £5 + FCFS.
5. The PAB recommends Two letter domains are auctioned off for charity and Nominet goes ahead with this.
However no sunrise period was in the policy to release the names.
The international 'domainers' with vast deep pockets then come along and bid crazy amounts of money for names. They then park the names to their PPC search engines.
DRS complaints then come flooding in on names like BA.co.uk AA.co.uk FT.co.uk however the domainers say they are "generic" and it goes to the High Court.
6. Lock state is also recommended to be implemented.
However when some registrars go bust/stop working/stop responding the names are stuck on lock:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/17/icann_withdraws_registerfly_accreditation/
Since the registrant set the lock Nominet can't remove the lock.
7. After looking at the "waiting list" sub-committee reports from 2003 and after holding another subcommittee. The PAB approves "waiting lists". However this system will take longer to implement than EPP!
Nominet decides they are the only ones who are going to sell the slots for £20 each (cost recovery basis they say).
However again no trademark sunrise policy was in the proposal and "domainers" are the only ones who can understand/work out drop dates.
Domainers then buy as many slots as possible - even when the name has just gone in to detagged status.
The DAC is still used to make "waiting lists" and these lists become far more valuable than ever before.
Some of the biggest dropcatchers then decide to club together and sue Nominet for "loss of business".
8. After a "Review of raising industry standards" the PAB decides most registrars are still not following the new Good Practice Terms:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/registrars/ra/gpt/
Therefore Nominet decides to make "registrars" go through an accreditation process just like ICANN:
http://www.icann.org/registrars/accreditation-process.htm
For which they implement an application fee (since getting the power to do so from EGM3):
http://www.nic.uk/governance/consultation/fees/
9. The Board composition proposal is then implemented:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/governance/consultation/boardcomp/
Which means all the above and more is decided by:
3 executive directors - Lesley Cowley, ***** Taylor, Jay Daley?
3 elected non-executive directors - none of the current non-executives can stand again because they have been on the board more than 3 years already? So who will stand? Angus? Jarrod? Peter?
3 appointed non-executive directors - Bob Gilbert, A Famous person, A lawyer with degree from Harvard?
Meaning Nominet is no longer answerable to the membership.
10. Finally Pipex is sold to.........Schlund (1and1)?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/12/pipex_for_sale/
Who then get another ###,### voting allocation on top of #,###,###
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9807_Voting_Rights.pdf
P.S. I wouldn't call the above a conspiracy theory either more of a Risk Management plan for all stakeholders. Also of course I hope it won't happen hence the reason for me posting this.
1. An elected member of the PAB makes one comment on Acorndomains which breaks the PAB code of conduct "2.7 Individual opinion":
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/10984_070108_codeofconduct.pdf
That PAB member then gets a 2.11 "Severe Reprimand".
However unhappy with this the PAB member then starts quoting the Human rights Act and goes to the press.
This then breaks the PAB code of conduct "2.9 Media Attention".
So using the recent PAB rule change 75% of all PAB members decide to expell the member:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/17119_Board_response_-_meeting_48.pdf
However at that PAB meeting 4 elected PAB members are missing because they are stuck on a train (trying to get to the new all-in-one day afternoon meeting). So the majority of the Appointed members expell the elected member.
Then......
2. Due to recent resignations and the elected PAB being expelled..... Nominet decides to implement Hazel's proposal afterall:
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/11737_070102_PAB_Composition.pdf
Nominet decides to have far more appointed members than elected members.
Meanwhile......
The PAB starts looking at the Work Programme for 2007: http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/17117_070228_PAB_work_programme.pdf
3. The PAB recommends the board to accept the "Variable registration periods" policy:
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/17114_070301_Variable_registration.pdf
www.1and1.co.uk then start offering 10 years registrations for £19.90.
Feeling that Nominet will soon raise the registration fees (See Governance Consultation: fees) registrants start buying 10 year renewals like hot cakes.
http://www.nic.uk/governance/consultation/fees/
This indirectly effects dropcatching as all good names become 'future-noms' instead of pre-noms.
Meanwhile the DRS policy is updated and gets appiled to the registrations for 10 years:
http://www.nic.uk/policy/consultations/updatedrs/
4. The PAB then decides to recommend a policy on "domaining".
They recommend Nominet does actually raise the registration fee to £20 for Nominet members.
Also they recommend a quota of 20 names per NEW registrant - ignoring the names people currently own (which become more valuable).
Also they advise all applications made to .org.uk and .me.uk should be 'vetted'.
The board accepts this.......
Then the large Nominet registrars decide to sue Nominet for 'loss of business'. As the number of registrations they are processing at £20 x 20 is vastly different to £5 + FCFS.
5. The PAB recommends Two letter domains are auctioned off for charity and Nominet goes ahead with this.
However no sunrise period was in the policy to release the names.
The international 'domainers' with vast deep pockets then come along and bid crazy amounts of money for names. They then park the names to their PPC search engines.
DRS complaints then come flooding in on names like BA.co.uk AA.co.uk FT.co.uk however the domainers say they are "generic" and it goes to the High Court.
6. Lock state is also recommended to be implemented.
However when some registrars go bust/stop working/stop responding the names are stuck on lock:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/17/icann_withdraws_registerfly_accreditation/
Since the registrant set the lock Nominet can't remove the lock.
7. After looking at the "waiting list" sub-committee reports from 2003 and after holding another subcommittee. The PAB approves "waiting lists". However this system will take longer to implement than EPP!
Nominet decides they are the only ones who are going to sell the slots for £20 each (cost recovery basis they say).
However again no trademark sunrise policy was in the proposal and "domainers" are the only ones who can understand/work out drop dates.
Domainers then buy as many slots as possible - even when the name has just gone in to detagged status.
The DAC is still used to make "waiting lists" and these lists become far more valuable than ever before.
Some of the biggest dropcatchers then decide to club together and sue Nominet for "loss of business".
8. After a "Review of raising industry standards" the PAB decides most registrars are still not following the new Good Practice Terms:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/registrars/ra/gpt/
Therefore Nominet decides to make "registrars" go through an accreditation process just like ICANN:
http://www.icann.org/registrars/accreditation-process.htm
For which they implement an application fee (since getting the power to do so from EGM3):
http://www.nic.uk/governance/consultation/fees/
9. The Board composition proposal is then implemented:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/governance/consultation/boardcomp/
Which means all the above and more is decided by:
3 executive directors - Lesley Cowley, ***** Taylor, Jay Daley?
3 elected non-executive directors - none of the current non-executives can stand again because they have been on the board more than 3 years already? So who will stand? Angus? Jarrod? Peter?
3 appointed non-executive directors - Bob Gilbert, A Famous person, A lawyer with degree from Harvard?
Meaning Nominet is no longer answerable to the membership.
10. Finally Pipex is sold to.........Schlund (1and1)?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/12/pipex_for_sale/
Who then get another ###,### voting allocation on top of #,###,###
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9807_Voting_Rights.pdf
P.S. I wouldn't call the above a conspiracy theory either more of a Risk Management plan for all stakeholders. Also of course I hope it won't happen hence the reason for me posting this.
Wat's wrong with replying "in depth" on Acorn? - seeing as though this is where the comments have been made!
