.uk V2.0 Questions to Nominet & their Answers

[Pred]

is there a date nominet make a definite decision ior it goes to board for a decision?
if so is there then a period during which appeals are made?

so have they set a date? lol

 

[GreyWing]

Pred, even if they decide to go with it mate, it won't help the market. Legal disputes will go on for a year or more. It's going to be one big mess.

I'm not sure though that it has massively hit the market yet. It may have hit the reseller market but the amount of people that know is still very small. I think google and other issues are a big reason for the drop in the market up to now.

 

[Pred]

ok, cheers GW

 

[Stephen]

censorship?

Look like to whom?

... In other words, while it may matter to you or to me or to many Acorners that they're seemingly censoring blog comments, the wider world couldn't give a hoot. It's a completely non-starter of a story.

You need to pick and choose the things that people outside our industry might perhaps actually care about enough to get worked up. "Not publishing a few blog comments" certainly isn't that!

Sorry if that sounds harsh, I just thought this whole debate needs a bucket of cold water poured on it so that we can get back to reality. At the moment it's just (mainly) a few industry insiders getting steamed about something on a domain forum.

Went for lunch today to get another perspective from an industry outsider and they referred to the recent article about Nominet and the lack of policing and censorship on "pornographic names" (there was a lot more media coverage of this than the current .uk consultation) and they linked the irony that Nominet are quite happy to censor free speech about their proposal if it does not suit them!

Maybe a story after all!

Although I would not like to obtain publicity this way, as it would harm Nominet and by inference the UK namespace, it highlights Nominet have made a decision about censorship that they might live to regret.

 

[Edwin]

Now you really are over reaching... Switching blog comments off on one post is hardly "censorship" when people are free to post on here, on Nominet's own forum, in blog posts, in comments on other blogs, on Twitter, on dedicated sites, in press releases, in emails and in millions of other venues exactly what they like about .uk!

Contrast that with the idea of filtering ALL adult/undersirable content and the difference is profound.

 

[GreyWing]

Now you really are over reaching... Switching blog comments off on one post is hardly "censorship" when people are free to post on here, on Nominet's own forum, in blog posts, in comments on other blogs, on Twitter, on dedicated sites, in press releases, in emails and in millions of other venues exactly what they like about .uk!

Contrast that with the idea of filtering ALL adult/undersirable content and the difference is profound.

Sorry Edwin, seriously mate....... The Dear MP video that asked MP's for help with .uk, that was shut down and I got legal letters about it! Not taken before a court of law.

 

[Stephen]

what is interesting to the outside world?

Now you really are over reaching... Switching blog comments off on one post is hardly "censorship" when people are free to post on here, on Nominet's own forum, in blog posts, in comments on other blogs, on Twitter, on dedicated sites, in press releases, in emails and in millions of other venues exactly what they like about .uk!

Contrast that with the idea of filtering ALL adult/undersirable content and the difference is profound.

I'm simply following the line of interest and point of somebody from outside the domaining community.

Not referring to filtering content only the domain names where mentioned as an issue as they were not censored by Nominet in any way. (whether they should is another question altogether), just following the line of the story.

Although as it was my questions were not posted I do feel it is a form of censorship that Nominet are imposing,
they were not personal and not views but legitimate questions about statements in the the "blog", which if answered would have given a fuller picture about .uk.

I see this blog blocking as only part of the problem, other censorship is being undertaken by Nominet,
in the Q & A, what was the most asked question at the Round table?
It was probably "where is the business case for .uk being introduced at all?"
Please look at the Nominet Q & A and find that question and then could you please let me know what it says?
http://www.nominet.org.uk/how-participate/policy-development/current-policy-discussions-and-consultations/SLDR-qanda
By the way it is answered in the blog to some degree but that page is not linked to in Q & A or in opening page
http://www.nominet.org.uk/how-participate/policy-development/current-policy-discussions-and-consultations/registration-second
But you cannot ask a question on the Nominet Q & A, or obtain a reply directly on the Nominet stance on the issue.

Here's an idea for Nominet, why not create an area on their website were the .uk can be debated and views shared and feedback to the .uk consultation published in real time and encourage people to use it?

Nominet forum is closed to members only but take the point I have not yet received a legal summons from Nominet to prevent me mentioning these things (yet!) and I'm free as others are, to post here and blog in other places etc. but they cannot censor the internet but they are censoring what they can which is in their own site, when they are a public purpose not a for profit company I think that they have got the balance wrong.

Your have previously stated "You need to pick and choose the things that people outside our industry might perhaps actually care about enough to get worked up"

It seems that the media cared about UK domain names relating to "pornography" that the organization in charge (Nominet) does not censor even though I have seen threads here, which suggest that those domain names should not be of interest to Nominet.
The fact is the story had far more media coverage and exposure that the .uk proposal.

Another thing the media seem to like is "hypocrisy" and in my experience once the media have a story on something which has a villain,
like Nominet in the stories so far, they may add another slant of hypocrisy which shows there original story was even more valid as this is a bad company!

I'm not advocated coverage and I'm not spending time trying to get the media to take up the story, only there is a danger that the media may pick up the story.

I do not think such a story was run would be interested in .uk at all, only that the media was right to vilify Nominet in the first place.

I would rather stick to the issues around .uk.

 

[viceroy]

Maybe try to get onto bbc click?

 

[Stephen]

please spread the word

Maybe try to get onto bbc click?

Thanks,. Now there is a report about some of the potential flaws in the .uk proposal anybody can link to it or sent it themselves to any organization that they think will use it or publish it. Or extract any part of it to further there way they consider .uk should proceed.

The report is there to save anybody a lot of time explaining what are the issues about .uk and getting out the word about .uk proposal and consultation.

The report can be downloaded at http://www.youruk.org.uk/ or linked to

and the press release can be seen at

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/8/prweb11056229.htm

to get the word out about .uk, need the articles, reports but also need people to spread the word to as many organizations and potentially effected and interested people as possible.

Another article about .uk I have included a link to several times is :
www.splashweb.co.uk/directuk

 

[Stephen]

No to emailing registrants about .uk consultation

In July I asked Nominet about emailing UK registrants about the .uk consultation.

On 2nd August I sent this email to Nominet;

If you have not had such independent legal opinion about sending emails to UK registrants specifically about your new .uk proposal, I would be willing to provide one, at my cost if you would agree to send emails if it clearly stated in the opinion it was not against UK law. Please reply on this important point as in my experience these opinions take some time to obtain, also if you have a preference on legal firms to provide the opinion please provide me with the information.

Today, the 28th August I received this response from Nominet;

As regards the offer to fund legal advice, this will not be necessary. I can confirm that Nominet had obtained independent legal advice on the question of notifying .uk registrants of the consultation by email and whether this would be compliant with UK law.

I have requested that the advise be made public in the interests of transparency, I will await their response.

 

[aZooZa]

In July I asked Nominet about emailing UK registrants about the .uk consultation.

On 2nd August I sent this email to Nominet;



Today, the 28th August I received this response from Nominet;



I have requested that the advise be made public in the interests of transparency, I will await their response.

I keenly await this response. I'd also like to know from where they received this external and erudite advice, should they decide to oblige. This is vital information, with no excuse for not revealing the details and their source. Why wouldn't they make this specific information public? Don't forget who's paying their legal bills...

I don't have time to follow all the threads, but this particular question intrigues me very much as I've been involved in the DM industry since 1995 and have enough lay knowledge to smell out a stinking rat if there is one.

So; which Counsel, and what advice?

 

[Lucien Taylor]

Thanks Stephen, the advice would be helpful, but more importantly the *instructions* for that advice. The members need to know the instructions that were given to obtain that advice.

As we know, by the process of advocacy equally valid advice can be given for or against an idea depending on which side you stand.

 

[aZooZa]

Thanks Stephen, the advice would be helpful, but more importantly the *instructions* for that advice. The members need to know the instructions that were given to obtain that advice.

As we know, by the process of advocacy equally valid advice can be given for or against an idea depending on which side you stand.

Quite so - thanks Lucien - I missed that important point.

 

[markb]

In July I asked Nominet about emailing UK registrants about the .uk consultation.

On 2nd August I sent this email to Nominet;



Today, the 28th August I received this response from Nominet;



I have requested that the advise be made public in the interests of transparency, I will await their response.

The important thing is that they COULD have emailed registrants if they wanted to. But they didn't want to and it looks like they went to the trouble of getting both internal and external legal advice to try and find an excuse why they didn't have too. This shows what lengths nominet will go to to try and push this direct.uk proposal through. I think its totally shocking.

 

[aZooZa]

The important thing is that they COULD have emailed registrants if they wanted to. But they didn't want to and it looks like they went to the trouble of getting both internal and external legal advice to try and find an excuse why they didn't have too. This shows what lengths nominet will go to to try and push this direct.uk proposal through. I think its totally shocking.

I agree to some extent, but the 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' argument holds no water - they have a fiduciary duty to their stakeholders; and as these proposals are so potentially impactive, I would look at it as a dereliction of duty if they don't get this solved. It's not really rocket science.

As Lucien ponted out, they might have solicited external advice in two ways:

1. Why SHOULD we...

2. Why SHOULDN'T we...

Both briefs are sure to attract conflicting advice. Barristers - been there.

 

[Nigel]

In July I asked Nominet about emailing UK registrants about the .uk consultation.

On 2nd August I sent this email to Nominet;



Today, the 28th August I received this response from Nominet;



I have requested that the advise be made public in the interests of transparency, I will await their response.

Very interesting to hear that they've now obtained independent legal advice on this. When I questioned them about v1 they confirmed that the legal advice was from their 'in house' team. If uk law dictates that existing registrants should be kept in the dark about the v2 consultation, then you'd expect the same laws to block nominet from being able to contact them should v2 proceed.

 

[aZooZa]

Very interesting to hear that they've now obtained independent legal advice on this. When I questioned them about v1 they confirmed that the legal advice was from their 'in house' team. If uk law dictates that existing registrants should be kept in the dark about the v2 consultation, then you'd expect the same laws to block nominet from being able to contact them should v2 proceed.

That's a non sequitur. Whatever their 'in-house' advice was is a separate matter to any subsequent solicitation of advice. Again, what was their 'brief' (i.e. instructions) to Counsel on each occasion?

 

[Nigel]

That's a non sequitur. Whatever their 'in-house' advice was is a separate matter to any subsequent solicitation of advice. Again, what was their 'brief' (i.e. instructions) to Counsel on each occasion?

I appreciate that the external advice is totally separate to that given by the in house team. I was just interested to hear that they had finally gone to the trouble of getting independent advice. I think the second part of my comment is valid 'If uk law dictates that existing registrants should be kept in the dark about the v2 consultation, then you'd expect the same laws to block nominet from being able to contact them should v2 proceed.' and you'd expect this scenario to have also been put to Counsel. It is important to know what their brief to Counsel was but I doubt that nominet will disclose the full details to us.

 

[aZooZa]

Nigel, I don't think we're at loggerheads here. I think we're looking for the same transparency. However, it still depends on the 'brief' afforded to both 'in-house' and external Chambers.

When you're on £1,000 an hour, you're going to spin it according to 'brief'.

I think the revelation...

'If uk law dictates that existing registrants should be kept in the dark about the v2 consultation, then you'd expect the same laws to block nominet from being able to contact them should v2 proceed.'

Ambiguous? Sure. Clue: "you'd expect..."

It's nonsense anyway - an opinion essentially. If I have to demonstrate the two possible scenarios in terms of briefs, I can do so - but it comes back essentially as to what the instructions were.

In my opinion, the initial in-house Counsel opinion was biased; flawed, and heavily weighted in favour of the initial brief. That's what in-house, retained lawyers do.

Surely I don't need to illustrate two sets of example instructions to Counsel that would elicit two totally different responses?

I can do that - but it's late here in China - perhaps tomorrow if there's an appetite for it

 

[Nigel]

I realise that the way it is put to counsel will help you get the desired result. But my point is that it's still worth asking nominet for the reasoning given by the independent legal advisers which means they are legally precluded from contacting existing registrants about the consultation, yet legally entitled to contact/and sell to the same existing registrants should v2 proceed.