View other .uk feedback

[Lucien Taylor]

There's no story here at the moment and when Nominet do finally make a decision, let's assume the worst and they give direct.uk the green light. At that point the fight will begin in earnest but constantly writing to the press with non stories at this stage risks alienating them against you and using goodwill that you may need for a real battle.

Could I put your question back to you - if as you suggest, the members do nothing until the after the deal is done, what fight would you begin in earnest, and what would you possibly hope to achieve, and with whom?

 

[GreyWing]

Graeme, I've just watched a recording of the AGM and I owe you an apology. The interruption wasn't you and I was wrong so the humble pie is mine to eat.

No problem at all Sean, honestly no grudges on my part and I never take anything to heart anyway. I haven't seen the webcast but I have been told that because we had the microphones and others didn't, so it made us sound louder than what we were.

 

[Stephen]

New Press Release

Sorry to interrupt the thread with something to do with .uk!

I have had permission from Alex Bligh to use his .uk feedback in this way and it is now being distributed to main (and some not so main) UK news/media outlets via PRweb.com premium service for maximum impact.

As you can see from his feedback he supports "no .uk".

Founder of Nominet states that he is against the current Nominet .uk proposal and encourages others to respond to the consultation before it is too late

The feedback to the current proposal to introduce .uk domain names next year will only be published in November, when the Nominet Directors provide their decision on how they are going to proceed with .uk domain names. Some are publishing their feedback now and are encouraging others to get involved in the consultation. One of those is Alex Bligh who via his blog displays his informed .uk feedback in full, which expresses his view that Nominet have failed to demonstrate that the proposals are in the interest of all stakeholders. Alex Bligh is a founder of Nominet and served as non-executive director of Nominet for 11 years.

Alex Bligh’s response comes just days after YourUk.org.uk published a report showing potential flaws in the Nominet .uk proposal. This report highlights that the proposal will adversely affect millions of current holders of .co.uk domains, and encourages people to get involved or lose their .uk domains.

Alex Bligh’s well written response to the .uk consultation should be read in full and can be found here.

Extracts from the feedback highlight some areas of concern for all .co.uk holders:

“The proposals pay insufficient attention to the rights and legitimate expectations of existing registrants.”

“In general, no persuasive case has been made to open up second level domain registrations at all, and the less than persuasive case that has been put fails to adequately weigh the perceived advantages of opening up second level domain registrations against the damage caused to existing registrants. In simple terms, the collateral damage outweighs the benefits.”

“Nominet’s initial consultation document only told side one of the story; it presented the advantages of opening registrations at the second level without putting forward any of the disadvantages. It is therefore completely unsurprising that it found favour with some respondents particularly those unfamiliar with domain names who would not be able to intuit the disadvantages themselves, rather like a politician asking voters whether they would like lower taxes without pointing out the consequences. The second consultation is little better – nowhere does it set out the disadvantages of the proposal as a whole to existing registrants.”

“Existing registrants would be disadvantaged. By presenting (probably falsely) registrations in the second level as more trustworthy, this implies registrations at the third level (i.e. all existing registrations) are somehow less trustworthy, or in some way ‘dodgy’.”

“These proposals risk introducing excess complexity. The most equitable path would be not to open up registrations at the second level at all.”

“There is simply no reason why those ejected from gov.uk should have preferential treatment over domain name holders in .uk”…..”I am afraid this proposal smells like Nominet pandering for support from government for its otherwise unpopular proposal.”

“To reiterate the point I have made before, this consultation and its ill-fated predecessor fail to put their points across in an even handed manner. That is they expound the advantages of Nominet’s proposal, without considering its disadvantages. That is Nominet’s prerogative, but if that is the course Nominet takes then it should not attempt to present the results of such a ‘consultation’ as representative, as their consultees will have heard only one side of the story.”​

Please note the Nominet .uk consultation closes on 23rd September 2013 and YourUK encourages all to get involved and complete the .uk consultation form at www.Nominet.org.uk as soon as possible.

 

[GreyWing]

The bit where Lucien confronts the chair (1hr 56min ) isn't very pretty and doesn't make for pleasant viewing.

I still believe the time isn't right for you both to be pushing your agenda. Direct.uk is very important and I'm tired of every time that Nominet gets mentioned we get the usual vitriol. It serves no purpose and helps no one and makes it impossible for any intelligent human being to take us seriously.

I understand that yourself, Lucien and few people behind the scenes are trying to affect change at Nominet but I'm not interested in being a part of that so can we try to keep the two things separate.

I'm sorry you feel like that but what you say isn't accurate and there is a lot of context to it. Again I'm not sure who is launching into vitriol but if you can point me to something I can answer it in context.

Nobody invited you to be part of anything, not sure why you have emotionally attached yourself to whatever you think is going on.

 

[Retired_Member38]

I only watched that one small bit of the clip but I think the woman chairing the meeting looked far worse than Lucien. It was pretty obvious she was being evasive and didn't want to answer and that never looks good.

 

[Nigel]

Just watched a large part of the AGM webcast for the first time. I think the questions from the floor were relevant and I'm pleased that they were recorded. Nothing wrong in people being passionate or downright upset at some of nominet's behaviour - don't think anyone was out of order in their behaviour. Also very impressed with that lawyer Paul Keating - very articulate and aware of his subject.

 

[Nigel]

'public purpose'

also worth noting and recording the words of Mrs Cowley about 'public purpose' at the AGM. Listen at approx. 1 hour 22 mins 32 secs

"... I'm not sure if you are aware but public purpose is hardwired into our constitution....the board are now bound by the constitution to consider public purpose and the effect of decisions made on registrants and the general public, in effect, as part of the decision making process."

which begs the question - wouldn't 'public purpose' include keeping existing registrants up to date with major changes and decisions that might have major implications in terms of time, money, lost traffic etc.

Have nominet broken the 'public purpose' rules of their constitution by failing to inform existing registrants that a consultation is taking place and giving them the chance to partake in that constitution?

Shame Paul Keating isn't on this forum. I'd like to see the legal angle on this.

 

[Stephen]

informed contribution?

also worth noting and recording the words of Mrs Cowley about 'public purpose' at the AGM. Listen at approx. 1 hour 22 mins 32 secs

"... I'm not sure if you are aware but public purpose is hardwired into our constitution....the board are now bound by the constitution to consider public purpose and the effect of decisions made on registrants and the general public, in effect, as part of the decision making process."

which begs the question - wouldn't 'public purpose' include keeping existing registrants up to date with major changes and decisions that might have major implications in terms of time, money, lost traffic etc.

Have nominet broken the 'public purpose' rules of their constitution by failing to inform existing registrants that a consultation is taking place and giving them the chance to partake in that constitution?

Shame Paul Keating isn't on this forum. I'd like to see the legal angle on this.

Thanks for bringing that up.

If Nominet ever did consult a wider audience of stakeholders expanding from the few registrars they have contacted so far.

Common sense and guidelines from Government on what makes a good "consultation" states that a different set of consultation documents should be drawn up to match the knowledge of the potential participant in the process.

So a proposal with less jargon and more of the considerations, points, disadvantages, alternatives in plain English that a non-domainer would need explained to make an informed contribution to the .uk process.

 

[simondooner]

BBC… not the right time to introduce direct.uk

Interesting reading from the BBC’s response to the first consultation on direct.uk.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/171912/response/425574/attach/html/4/RFI20131139%20Disclosure%20Document.pdf.html

From 11.b

“… the BBC believes this is not the right time to introduce direct.uk…”

 

[Lucien Taylor]

Well spotted ....

Just tweeted:

@bbc on @nominet "it is of grave concern that brand holders may yet have to fund more brand protection activity in relation to direct.uk"

 

[GreyWing]

Great find Simon, that's actually shocked me on just how much on the ball they are. You generally don't find someone at such large non commercial organisations putting together such a detailed response that conveys the reality of the everyday real world person.

 

[Edwin]

The BBC's response doesn't really reassure me at all, given their strongly worded stance on preventing the registration of generics or public body names (section J), outlawing the sale of subdomains (section I) etc.

It's no good picking and choosing the bits that "sound ok" and calling them a "win" if other sections of the document are bad.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

Yes, good points - but this isn't really about those wishlist things (the BBC's response obviously contains some nonsense). The bit picked out is pretty headline and summary to the essential proposal. BBC say no, I'm astonished. I thought they were doing business together.

 

[Edwin]

Yes, good points - but this isn't really about those wishlist things (the BBC's response obviously contains some nonsense). The bit picked out is pretty headline and summary to the essential proposal. BBC say no, I'm astonished. I thought they were doing business together.

Sorry, Lucien, it simply doesn't work to pick and choose which bits of a third party's response are "nonsense" and which bits support a particular viewpoint. You don't end up with solid, supportable reasoning that way.

For me, the BBC's "nonsense" (your word not mine) stance on certain aspects of V1 negates any value that the rest of their response has with respect to quoting their proposal in support of a particular position.

 

[GreyWing]

It's no good picking and choosing the bits that "sound ok" and calling them a "win" if other sections of the document are bad.

Edwin, I don't know how to break it to you but just because they don't agree with you on certain things, it doesn't mean they are wrong and you are right.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

No, the response is essentially about direct.uk - Nominet's "and we'd also like to know your views about all the other things that we want to know about whilst we've got you filling out the form" and what the BBC say in answer to those questions are irrelevant. It's like the security thing - nothing to do with the essential proposal. If this was about those other things I'd agree with you, but I don't think that the BBC's poorly thought through ideas about the 'not really being consulted about matters' infect my view about their response to the essential consultation at all. They don't want it. There isn't a way of saying 'no' that is right or wrong in my book given the weight of influence of the commercial interests on the board. We might be coming at it from different angles but I'm not going to argue with them right now about their reasoning. Nominet are looking for headlines to support their poorly consulted, nobody wants it idea, and their friends at the BBC are not giving it to them. Don't you find that interesting?

 

[Edwin]

Edwin, I don't know how to break it to you but just because they don't agree with you on certain things, it doesn't mean they are wrong and you are right.

That's not what I said at all. It's nothing to do with me being wrong or right (nothing to do with me at all, in fact!)

It's to do with how one approaches documents with a view to having them support/refute a particular viewpoint (whether by disseminating them more widely, quoting from them, or whatever). This cannot be by selective quoting, otherwise you end up like Nominet's summary document with something that seems to support a particular position but which almost certainly doesn't (if you go back to the original sources and consider them in full).

What I tried to say is: "If you agree with SOME of what they say, it's not appropriate to focus only on that portion of their response and pretend the rest of the response is irrelevant".

 

[GreyWing]

Sorry but I thought you were marking things down as good and bad points. I inferred from that, that you were casting judgement on which bits you thought were right and wrong in the BBC's, hence which bits you agreed with. If I have it wrong and that you actually agree with some of the bad bits and disagree with some of the good bits then I strangely apologise.

Also I never actually quoted anything, if you re-read my post it's a summary on non specific parts that you have for some reason tried. It isn't actually clear which parts I am referring to at all. You do seem to have a bit of a habit of reading what you think I have written and answering that, rather than comments on what I did actually write.

 

[Stephen]

My Last .uk Press Release

As Nominet don't seem to be issuing another Press Release, trying to get more .uk feedback.

Have today issued this Press Release;

Nominet deadline for .uk feedback closes 23rd September,
after that it is too late to save .co.uk domain names

The Nominet .uk 3 month consultation closes on 23rd September 2013,
so please add your feedback before it is too late.
This push for feedback is being undertaken by YourUK.org.uk,
as it believes that NOT enough attention is given to this important topic,
which could adversely affect the owners of several million .co.uk domains.

“.uk proposes the biggest change to the .uk namespace since it began” those are the words of the CEO of Nominet from her Nominet blog.
Yet the consultation into the introduction of the new domain name extension .uk (e.g. Gap.uk) in 2014
has not attracted media attention and therefore in turn has produced a low number of ‘feedback responses’ to Nominet according to YourUK.org.uk.

It is not too late to read the Nominet .uk proposal and enter your feedback in to the consultation process at
Nominet’s website http://www.Nominet.org.uk but the online consultation closes on 23rd September 2013.

Additional information about the potential introduction of .uk, can be found at http://www.YourUk.org.uk including
a report “Get involved or lose your .uk” which explains some of the issues and potential problems with the current .uk proposal,
if it is not modified and goes ahead as it is, such as;

“ 'Oldest registration gets first chance'; so up to 250,000 .co.uk domain holders will not obtain the equivalent
.uk under the current proposal including: Hotmail.co.uk Dreams.co.uk Windows.co.uk Food.co.uk Sky.co.uk
ee.co.uk audible.co.uk freelancer.co.uk independent.co.uk gap.co.uk instyle.co.uk Art.co.uk
DayNurseries.co.uk Unwins.co.uk ITS.co.uk Adams.co.uk Bes.co.uk FlowersDirect.co.uk Custard.co.uk
Build.co.uk TopMail.co.uk TheBelfry.co.uk Benedict.co.uk Smiles.co.uk Tamba.co.uk Pims.co.uk Planet.co.uk
Prospects.co.uk PopupStands.co.uk PaydayLoans.co.uk oba.co.uk RadioCity.co.uk Alli.co.uk to name but a
few."​

Also at http://www.YourUk.org.uk it is interesting to read the full feedback to the .uk proposal from Alex Bligh;
a founder of Nominet who served as non-executive director of Nominet for 11 years up to 2007, which includes statements such as;

“Existing registrants would be disadvantaged. By presenting (probably falsely) registrations in the second level as more trustworthy,
this implies registrations at the third level (i.e. all existing registrations) are somehow less
trustworthy, or in some way ‘dodgy.'”​

From the Nominet .uk Questions and Answers:
Q. "Why are you proposing this change?"
A. "We want consumers and businesses to choose a domain name that ends in .uk – and benefit from our commitment
to running a trusted, safe and secure online space.
From next year, there will be over 1,000 new options to join the familiar .co.uk or .com.
We believe that many businesses and consumers would be attracted to shorter domain names,
and it is important for the long-term future of .uk that we offer more choice."

The main new domain extensions that will affect .co.uk ownership are arguably .wales, .scot and .London; none of which are shorter than .co.uk?

In Germany there was a study undertaken, were it was reported more than 80% of the participating German registrars
do not expect the new 1,000 Top Level Domains (TLDs) to cause a drop in domain registrations under the national country code .de.

Some might say German has a second level domain name now (.de rather than .co.de), so that is why they are not concerned.
However if you delve more into the report you will find it is to do with local identity of the domain name extension e.g. .de for Germany not the length of the domain.

Nominet should not use these new domain names as cover for introducing a new product that will at least double their turnover
and cause untold problems for existing UK domain owners.

If you don’t want your UK website to be regarding as “dodgy” and/or lose your “.uk equivalent domain name”,
YourUk.org.uk recommends that you act now and provide your feedback to Nominet before it is too late.

---THE END----