.UK Announced

[Systreg]

BTW, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that the documents presented to the Board continue to brush under the carpet the whole "should we/shouldn't we?" issue, which should be addressed FIRST ahead of ANY specifics.

Exactly, they should start a new consultation, with the form having 1 single question, yes or no to direct.uk, it's really that simple, nothing else matters until that question is answered, as it appears to have been, but it has been swept away.

 

[Edwin]

One final "initial" thought: neither summary makes any mention of the massive (i.e. current revenue dwarfing) windfall of new revenue that would accrute to Nominet should it go ahead. My figure of £50,000,000/year has never been successfully disputed, since Nominet has declined to be drawn on their own projections (though they did state that my estimate was way too high - interesting, since I showed EXACTLY how I derived it based on similar developments in other countries)

 

[Lovekraft]

Buying more time, not too much of a surprise.

When filling out the reply to the consultation, i also found the lack of asking a straight out "do you think it should go ahead at all or not?" type question frustrating.

It felt like the whole consultation was set out in a way in which you are manipulated to showing some positive interest in certain areas of the proposal by making the respondent outline how they think it should go ahead whether it be the release process or the security features. Very little option to declare no interest at all was given. For a lot of respondents, they don't want it to go ahead at all but still found ourselves answering these questions just in case it does go ahead as a last resort.

And it's clear now they have used this to their advantage.

 

[Stephen]

The Secretariat couldn't resist the chance of a dig at domainers. Really, if you get the itch, sit on your hands until it goes away, guys! It's not productive...
From their summary document, page 58:

Sorry, I was one of those requesting full ownership of .uk by .co.uk owners although there were lots of other reasons to chose that option rather than first UK namespace registration method.

 

[addz123]

Pretty interesting as I wrote about this in my article(s).

The Board noted the legal advice obtained in relation to directors’ interests and conflicts.
Consequently Dickie Armour, Sebastien Lahtinen and Thomas Vollrath declared their interests,
left the meeting and did not take part in the decisio

 

[Jamie101]

I'd just like to say thanks to everyone who has put so much time and effort in to this too - well done!

However, I'm still not entirely happy with the result today. Do people think that the market will pick up after today or will it remain the same?

Personally I think it should pick up a bit.

 

[GreyWing]

Didn't take part in the decision but did take part in the discussion?

 

[Lovekraft]

I'd just like to say thanks to everyone who has put so much time and effort in to this too - well done!

However, I'm still not entirely happy with the result today. Do people think that the market will pick up after today or will it remain the same?

Personally I think it should pick up a bit.

I think it will continue to suffer on as this continues to hang over.

Personally i think, it is most definitely going ahead. They just need more time to fine tune it.

 

[websaway]

From that:



I agree she should get three years, but not as a board member.

The Board noted the legal advice obtained in relation to directors’ interests and conflicts.
Consequently Dickie Armour, Sebastien Lahtinen and Thomas Vollrath declared their interests,
left the meeting and did not take part in the decision.


Good to see the conflict of interest was taken seriously.
Would she have had the support of the board to remain if there was not an agreed climb down.

 

[foz]

However, I'm still not entirely happy with the result today. Do people think that the market will pick up after today or will it remain the same?

Same, tending to worst, as the board (who voted) still seem very keen to open up the second level.

 

[JamesTuplin]

Buying more time, not too much of a surprise.

When filling out the reply to the consultation, i also found the lack of asking a straight out "do you think it should go ahead at all or not?" type question frustrating.

It felt like the whole consultation was set out in a way in which you are manipulated to showing some positive interest in certain areas of the proposal by making the respondent outline how they think it should go ahead whether it be the release process or the security features. Very little option to declare no interest at all was given. For a lot of respondents, they don't want it to go ahead at all but still found ourselves answering these questions just in case it does go ahead as a last resort.

And it's clear now they have used this to their advantage.

+1

Correct me if I am wrong but I didn't see a single instance where I could simply vote NO. I was instead forced to explain myself why the proposals were not in the best interests of members and why .uk is nothing more than a money making exercise for Nominet and its golden registrar partners.

 

[Stephen]

conflict of interest?

Pretty interesting as I wrote about this in my article(s).

The Board noted the legal advice obtained in relation to directors’ interests and conflicts.
Consequently Dickie Armour, Sebastien Lahtinen and Thomas Vollrath declared their interests,
left the meeting and did not take part in the decision

On looking back at previous minutes, I did not see they excluded themselves from when the .uk proposal was made and the form it took originally.

 

[websaway]

I think it will continue to suffer on as this continues to hang over.

Personally i think, it is most definitely going ahead. They just need more time to fine tune it.

It never had any chance of going ahead and it's got less now.
The only way it could be achieved is a migration from co.uk to .uk but even that would not be acceptable to most people who are happy with their co.uk which they have invested time and money in promoting as the UK business namespace.

 

[Edwin]

This is going to show up as item 11b on the June Board meeting (or something like that) with a "Upon further reflection, Nominet has decided not to proceed any further with direct.uk" or similar statement. It is unthinkable that they can really expect to get two bites at this cherry when they failed so badly the first time after stacking EVERYTHING in their favour...

From my point of view, this is now a dead issue.

 

[Systreg]

The Board noted the legal advice obtained in relation to directors’ interests and conflicts.
Consequently Dickie Armour, Sebastien Lahtinen and Thomas Vollrath declared their interests,
left the meeting and did not take part in the decision.

Good to see the conflict of interest was taken seriously.
Would she have had the support of the board to remain if there was not an agreed climb down.

I don't think it has been taken seriously, as Greywing said above:

Didn't take part in the decision but did take part in the discussion?

They were obviously part of the discussion process, which of course forms part of the end decision, so anything they said in discussions is clearly a conflict of interest.

That's a bit like me planning an armed robbery, being the brains behind it but not being there when the robbery is committed, the fact remains that I would still be jailed for conspiracy to commit said armed robbery, even if I was not present with a sawn off at the bank.

 

[DarrenTSO]

The Secretariat couldn't resist the chance of a dig at domainers. Really, if you get the itch, sit on your hands until it goes away, guys! It's not productive...

From their summary document, page 58:

I wouldn't say it was a dig Edwin, just explaining the rationale/reasoning behind a certain viewpoint.

A small number of stakeholders, notably those active in the secondary market or registrants who
had purchased their domain from the secondary market and thus invested significant financial
resources in their domain name(s), were especially of the view that existing registrants should be
given an “automatic right” to the matching direct.uk domain so as not to undermine their initial
investment. This group of respondents advanced the view that this should be the only way the
service is implemented, as any other process could be inequitable.

I think that as an exercise, this has been a bit fruitless from Nominet's perspective. They should have sought opinions and views before going to the consultation stage, so that the consultation could be framed correctly from the get-go - i.e. a yes/no question, and a question about whether and what security features there should be (if any), as well as pricing and the all important release mechanism.

Producing such a consultation document where ideas had already been distilled from what appeared to be thin air was the wrong approach to take in looking to open up the second level.

Funnily enough, the final report actually sums up my personal views very well. I'm not against direct.uk per se, but it needs to be done in the right way particularly with regards to the release mechanism.

 

[foz]

From my point of view, this is now a dead issue.

It can't be dead as they're still toying with the idea. The spark to ignite the flame exists.

 

[websaway]

I don't think it has been taken seriously, as Greywing said above:



They were obviously part of the discussion process, which of course forms part of the end decision, so anything they said in discussions is clearly a conflict of interest.

That's a bit like me planning an armed robbery, being the brains behind it but not being there when the robbery is committed, the fact remains that I would still be jailed for conspiracy to commit said armed robbery, even if I was not present with a sawn off at the bank.

They could be persuasive, but they could also do that outside the boardroom. ultimately though the conflict of interest would without doubt occur if they were allowed to vote

 

[ANY-Web]

.UK a dead issue? Wishful thinking

This is going to show up as item 11b on the June Board meeting (or something like that) with a "Upon further reflection, Nominet has decided not to proceed any further with direct.uk" or similar statement. It is unthinkable that they can really expect to get two bites at this cherry when they failed so badly the first time after stacking EVERYTHING in their favour...

From my point of view, this is now a dead issue.

Edwin - for the second time in a day I find myself disagreeing with you.
I wish I could agree with your statement, but it is wishful thinking on your part. Yes, the proposal should die a quiet death. But it is unlikely to.
The .UK proposal will go ahead.
There will be a second consultation and Nominet will release a much revised and less contentious proposal. If that fails there will be another one.
Remember that the original drivers of the .UK consultation (greed and fear) have not gone away. Two very powerful forces.
Beware.

 

[foz]

They could be persuasive, but they could also do that outside the boardroom. ultimately though the conflict of interest would without doubt occur if they were allowed to vote

And so in reality only a handful of board members voted/took part, six? Hardly a brains trust to sing home about. Maybe the three that left weren't in favour and could have killed it?