PAB - what it is - what it can do

[Jac]

...ahh - me thinks you're trying to twist and misrepresent what I'm saying - my intensions I can asure you are honerable and I have no desire to "destroy" anything - quite the opposite in fact.

... ahh - me thinks you are misunderstanding my intentions too ... the only thing I wish to twist is the lemon over my chicken kebab tonight. I may even have some chips just to please Rob.

Good luck with the election.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[julian]

popcorn

.........................

 

[rob]

I think everyone agrees that change is a good thing, I doubt anyone would say Nominet or the PAB require no changes otherwise there would be little point in debating the matter

I strongly see the PAB as an arena to develop and shape the future policies and thus general direction and manner of Nominet. I am also very aware that Nominet are not bound to any PAB output. Likewise the PAB ought to encompass the views of all stakeholders, rather than be a platform for single issue / pressure groups.

As for Gordon Ramsey, he is able to go into a dodgy resturant and shout about all areas that make up the venture - the food, service, business operations, staffing , supply chain and the rest. He has a grounding for this as he is rated highly and has personal and commercial success.

If a PAB member was to stand with comparable success and basis for change then it would be a 'clean sweep' and to be honest Nominet ought to hire him/her directly as consultant - however I do not believe Nominet is in the comparable state to a pre-ramsey resturant.

The analogy is a good one as there are lots of areas that make up Nominet, much like any business! As such there are areas to be improved, as being able to pay £1 to complain about a fly in your soup and recieving a replacement dish without a chef checking could be easily abused by people with large appetites!

Quite a food related thread...yum!

 

[landlord]

spit

The chef could also spit in your replacement soup for complaining

Lee

 

[Beasty]

10 A domain name is not an item of property and has no ‘owner’. It is an entry on our register database reflected by our nameservers which we provide as part of this contract.

Beasty will be able to answer this better than all of us, but if a current set of Terms and Conditions states that a domain name is not an item of property, it would seem logical (and even legal) that we would have to lobby to have that particular terminology changed, and I'm sure Beasty would also acknowledge that top level QC advice was taken, by Nominet, in the wording of their Terms and Conditions. That's the problem with lawyers. They agree to disagree too.

Is a domain name an item of intellectual property? Nominet T&Cs - drafted some time ago - says no. But then a cynic would say that "They would" as that was the status quo of the time - started in the US - and created with the interests of the registry (not the registrant) in mind.

The Courts in the US have said yes - they are property - see the sex.com case for details - and there are plenty of them....

In the UK - the matter has not come directly in front of a Court to decide a domain name case - but it has been brought before the House of Lords in part of the Michael Douglas/OK/Hello case - which in fact covered other actions as well.

In one of the other actions, Lord Hoffmann (this country's senior IP jurist at the moment) said, when asked to consider the sex.com case:

The court held that the domain name was intangible property which could be converted in the same way as a chattel and that the registration company could be liable for its value. I have no difficulty with the proposition that a domain name may be intangible property, like a copyright or trade mark, but the notion that a registrar of such property can be strictly liable for the common law tort of conversion is, I think, foreign to English law.​

So there you have it, Nominet says no - Lord Hoffmann says yes. Only one of them can hand down legal precedent that binds all other courts in the UK.

Is the legal status of a .uk domain name a policy issue? Given that the House of Lords judgment was handed down in May of last year, has the PAB considered considering it - or even getting independent legal advice to guide it, before advising Nominet on whether it should consider changing its T&Cs? Any thoughts from any of the candidates on this?

 

[Beasty]

For instance, Nominet created the PAB, it's an extension of their communications' process. Experience teaches that the surest way to get ignored by professional people is to make your mutual relationship untenable.

So I would ask you to consider that a revamp 'Gordon Ramsey style' would kill the PAB stone dead, and I can't see how it would be in Acorn Domains' or any other stakeholder group's interests, to destroy a direct line of communication into Nominet's Board.

I think you may also be forgetting the 8 appointed members on the PAB from the House of Lords to the BERR and the CBI to the FSB. The arena is a tad more complex than Gordon Ramsey's style. I wish it wasn't but you can't unfry an egg.

Regards
James Conaghan

I am a little curious James. How much more ignored than it currently is could the PAB be? I ask this as, insofar as I am aware, Nominet did not ask the PAB for any advice on the biggest policy change that it has ever undertaken - the proposed creation of the Nominet Foundation.

The PAB minutes even suggest that a number of the Appointed PAB members were totally oblivious to the idea of the Foundation until after the decision had been taken by the Board, following minimal public consultation.

So I would ask the Candidates to indicate whether they would support a PAB motion - calling on Nominet to re-open the consultation on the Foundation and to follow the appropriate "long" policy consultation flow chart - which includes seeking the opinion of the PAB prior to putting the matter out to a wider consultation.

And before you say so James, I know the Board can ignore the motion - but then at least it would be clear that they were acting against the PAB's advice.

 

[Whois-Search]

The PAB minutes even suggest that a number of the Appointed PAB members were totally oblivious to the idea of the Foundation until after the decision had been taken by the Board, following minimal public consultation.

To be fair to James he was the one that pointed that out to the chair at the meeting.

Also it nearly wasn't minuted (published) at all....

 

[retired_member12]

To be fair to James he was the one that pointed that out to the chair at the meeting.

Also it nearly wasn't minuted (published) at all....

Do you mean it nearly wasn't minuted after it was pointed out to the Chair? Was there some objection to minuting what James had pointed out?

 

[rob]

Is the legal status of a .uk domain name a policy issue? Given that the House of Lords judgment was handed down in May of last year, has the PAB considered considering it - or even getting independent legal advice to guide it, before advising Nominet on whether it should consider changing its T&Cs? Any thoughts from any of the candidates on this?

I believe it is a key issue that needs resolving, as it is a cornerstone position from which policy and terms are drawn up from eg. renewal / dispute resolution etc.

So I would ask the Candidates to indicate whether they would support a PAB motion - calling on Nominet to re-open the consultation on the Foundation and to follow the appropriate "long" policy consultation flow chart - which includes seeking the opinion of the PAB prior to putting the matter out to a wider consultation.

And before you say so James, I know the Board can ignore the motion - but then at least it would be clear that they were acting against the PAB's advice.

I can see the point behind that, I would be more in favour of the PAB giving the board its opinion on the governance structure of the foundation (which could / would be part of the 'long' policy consultation) - to ensure it represents and reflects where the cash pile has come from ie. registrants and registrars.

 

[Whois-Search]

Do you mean it nearly wasn't minuted after it was pointed out to the Chair? Was there some objection to minuting what James had pointed out?

Let's just say I had to ask for this to be put on the report after the draft was sent to us:

"There were a number of questions regarding the Nominet Foundation and whether this was a policy issue or not. It was also noted that some members were not aware of the foundation or the consultation".

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/27382_PAB_54_Meeting_Report.pdf

I also mentioned Lee's pab-suggest email regarding domaining which is not on there either - i'm told that is not in the notes so can't be included.

IMO I think it is time the PAB regained it's independence from Nominet.

 

[rob]

"There were a number of questions regarding the Nominet Foundation and whether this was a policy issue or not. It was also noted that some members were not aware of the foundation or the consultation".

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/27382_PAB_54_Meeting_Report.pdf

What is the action on this?

ie. usually xyz was discussed, A will talk to B and report back or, the PAB formed a view of C etc.

 

[Jac]

Do you mean it nearly wasn't minuted after it was pointed out to the Chair? Was there some objection to minuting what James had pointed out?

I don't recall any objection, the Chair agreed with the point. So I think it was just an oversight. In any case, PAB members get a chance to read and approve the meeting reports before they are published and can request additions or amendments before they are made public (which is a good thing from a communications' standpoint).

Regards
James

 

[Jac]

What is the action on this?

ie. usually xyz was discussed, A will talk to B and report back or, the PAB formed a view of C etc.

The Executive and/or Board discuss the issues raised at PAB meetings and/or in the PAB reports and their responses are written into the agenda of the next meeting. Feedback has to be a two-way process and Nominet always responds to the questions or issues raised. The PAB is at liberty to ask for further information or raise further questions in respect of the feedback from Nominet.

Regards
James

 

[sneezycheese]

I am a little curious James. How much more ignored than it currently is could the PAB be? I ask this as, insofar as I am aware, Nominet did not ask the PAB for any advice on the biggest policy change that it has ever undertaken - the proposed creation of the Nominet Foundation.

The PAB minutes even suggest that a number of the Appointed PAB members were totally oblivious to the idea of the Foundation until after the decision had been taken by the Board, following minimal public consultation.

So I would ask the Candidates to indicate whether they would support a PAB motion - calling on Nominet to re-open the consultation on the Foundation and to follow the appropriate "long" policy consultation flow chart - which includes seeking the opinion of the PAB prior to putting the matter out to a wider consultation.

...I can hand on heart say that I would support a PAB motion calling for Nominet to re-open the consultation on the Foundation and to recomend that they follow the appropriate "long" policy consultation flow chart.

This is an important issue that maybe should even go to the Nominet Membership for a vote - please see my Election Statement:

Nominet Foundation - This is a major change in policy that hasn’t gone through the PAB or been put to a membership vote – why?

Domain Pricing – Should such a large chunk of money be put into the Nominet Foundation, or should there be a balance and domain registration be reduced in price?

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[bb99]

As a general point I do think that part of the process of improving communication should include an overhaul of the minutes.

As a valued stakeholder )), I would like to know more about what was said in the meetings and how decisions are made. I'm not looking for verbatim transcripts, I'm not looking for war and peace. Just more detail.

I think this would help to provide greater transparency and also to help educate people like myself who maintain an interest in Nominet policy but see the PAB as something of a toothless, box ticking beast.

edit:

And out of interest, now we have some PAB members reading this thread, in the November 2007 meeting minutes (Section 7 - Domain Re-Registration), it says:

The meeting became in-quorate at this point and further discussion was deferred.

What does that actually mean??? Did Andrew Bennett break wind? Did Michael Toth throw a breadroll from the ample sandwiches at Eric Ramage? Or did it just descend into a shouting match?

 

[retired_member12]

I don't recall any objection, the Chair agreed with the point. So I think it was just an oversight. In any case, PAB members get a chance to read and approve the meeting reports before they are published and can request additions or amendments before they are made public (which is a good thing from a communications' standpoint).

Regards
James

So let me understand this correctly, there is established deference to the PAB members to allow them an opportunity to point out omissions in the meeting reports, which on this occasion relates to a lack of deference to the PAB members regarding a significant event in the history of Nominet.

That's bloody hilarious!

 

[sneezycheese]

Let's just say I had to ask for this to be put on the report after the draft was sent to us:

...On this point I feel it's very important that the minutes of these meetings should be accurate (word for word or as close to as possible), just as they do in any House of Commons Select Committee meeting.

I would support a motion to have the meetings recorded and then transcribed, or have a professional minute taker accurately record these meetings.

I would also support a motion to alow Nominet Members to attend the meetings and that there be a 20 minutes members question time.

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[Beasty]

What does that actually mean??? Did Andrew Bennett break wind? Did Michael Toth throw a breadroll from the ample sandwiches at Eric Ramage? Or did it just descend into a shouting match?

I think it means the meeting became inquorate - i.e not enough people there and so did not constitute a quorum, so no more business could be conducted. My guess would be that they had just enough people at the start and then someone had to leave early.

Of course, maybe Andrew did break wind, forcing people to leave the room! :twisted:

 

[Whois-Search]

Of course, maybe Andrew did break wind, forcing people to leave the room! :twisted:

LOL I think at that meeting William Brocklehurst had to leave early for a meeting. You need 8 PAB members present for a PAB quorum and we only had 7 left.

Also.... you will notice the PAB reports are very carefull when naming people. It tends to be "two members felt" etc. I don't mind my name being used and often I ask for it to be, however many of the appointed members won't be quoted.

 

[Jac]

I am a little curious James. How much more ignored than it currently is could the PAB be? I ask this as, insofar as I am aware, Nominet did not ask the PAB for any advice on the biggest policy change that it has ever undertaken - the proposed creation of the Nominet Foundation.

The PAB minutes even suggest that a number of the Appointed PAB members were totally oblivious to the idea of the Foundation until after the decision had been taken by the Board, following minimal public consultation.

As I said to you in our private email exchange, I think you are incorrect to say it wasn't put out to consultation. It was put out in a mini consultation to the Membership. I know you accepted that though you stressed you meant a "proper" consultation, as in discussed at the PAB and put out to a 3 month public consultation.

As an aside, I supported Andrew (at the last PAB meeting) when he suggested that some stakeholders felt the Foundation was indeed a policy issue worthy of more consultation than we got. I suggested they could be right and your favourite reason was given, that it is actually registrant's money that is funding the Foundation (most it is channeled through registrars into the registry's coffers). I stand to be corrected, but I don't think Nominet disagree with that suggestion, i.e. that it is registrant money.

So I would ask the Candidates to indicate whether they would support a PAB motion - calling on Nominet to re-open the consultation on the Foundation and to follow the appropriate "long" policy consultation flow chart - which includes seeking the opinion of the PAB prior to putting the matter out to a wider consultation.

And before you say so James, I know the Board can ignore the motion - but then at least it would be clear that they were acting against the PAB's advice.

LOL... I wasn't going to "say so", I would say this however; I think events have already overtaken this particular issue because of the fact it did go out to the Membership for consultation and the press releases and framework Nominet is now putting in place. That said, the question whether it was a policy issue that should have been given more time at PAB level was raised by Andrew, and I expect the same level of feedback the PAB usually gets from the Board on the question raised.

As you know, I was in favour of a Nominet Foundation, but that doesn't mean I won't ask the questions stakeholders want answers to. What Andrew said previously should be proof enough of that as (I hope) will be the meeting that I arranged a while ago for Acorn subscribers with Nominet which both you and Andrew were at.

Best wishes
James