3. Do you have any comments on the way that issues groups might work?

"Primarily online but with the option of occasional face to face meetings if thought necessary."


"The proposals are opaque as to who decides who creates an issue group. One of the historical problems with the PAB has been that the PAB "work programme" was seen as a document for negotiation between the PAB and the Board. Neither of these parties should really be involved. The PAB should be there to advise Nominet, and the executive can react far more dynamically than referring everything to the board. In my view, Nominet is in the best position to know on what matters it needs advice, Nominet will be paying for the running of the body, and Nominet should thus decide on what it wants to be adviced.

Ultimately, Nominet should decide on what groups are created, and what their remit is. However, i would expect them to take stakeholder input on this, e.g. through the standing committee."


"Problem with issue groups as proposed is that they will be dominated by full time policy wonks pushing their own company's or organisation's agenda.   Most members won't be involved at all..."


"They will need to behave differently according to whether issues are urgent and/or important, simple or complicated, potentially controversial in the eyes of the public and/or divisive among members"


"I fear this approach could "clutter" up Nominet with too much activity so that important issues are lost. I prefer a process whereby the Board consider requests for Issues Groups to be formed. If they think there is a need, they can formlaise it. Thus the community can request an Issue Group but the Board appoints them. This will filter out the frivolous and the malicicious and ensure that the organisation is focussed on core values. If an Issue Group is denied by the Board, there could be a Reconsideration process."


"Yes, consensus can mean unanimity (which is undesirable) or a majority shared view. It should be clear that unanimity is not required for an issue group to reach a shred view."


"The Police Service should be involve din this initiative."


"Of course all views should be reflected but holding everything up because of, perhaps, a single lone voice, perhaps with very eccentric ideas or a particular commercial interest is fraught with difficulty. Insisting on consensus can quickly and easily lead to deadlock. There needs to be a way  to adjudicate and take a view in the event of this happening."


"Group elects a chair and probably a management committee.  The latter agree a wrok programme.  Agendas and minutes are handled by the secretariat. Groups should be able to ask speakers, even if there are no direct issues with the subject"


"There should be a meeting of key stakeholders which determined the key priory areas and which agrees to main objectives for each issue - the issue groups then work to each priority area identified and report back to the stakeholder/steering group on actions taken/progress reaching desired aims/objectives"


"Once the processes by which issues groups will be established are set out, it is important that there should be sufficent flexibility to allow them to be set up, populated and run appropriate to the context in which the policy issue sits.  Without this flexibility, a one size fits all approach can lead to one of two outcomes:  cumbersome procedures designed to tackle complex issues being used to deal with relatively minor or straightforward problems and as a result forcing groups to take a long time over something that could be dealt with swiftly; over-simplified procedures and rules which do allow swift and effective discussion/resolution of simple matters but only allow for a cursory glance at complex and/or important policies."


"Additionally, further improvement could be made if the work, impact assessment and consensus of any issue group is made available for comments to a wider range of .UK stakeholders and prior to the Board's consideration of issue group's findings or recommendation."

 
"The PAB’s outline for issues groups appears to be very sensible. In particular the requirement to produce an impact assessment is imperative. Impact assessments are central to good policy making. Whereas a flawed or unbalanced impact assessment can undermine a policy decision, conversely a robust impact assessment can provide important evidential support for a particular policy option.

Demonstrating that the interests of the full range of stakeholders have been taken into account will be an important step in Nominet’s evolution.   The issues groups need to be representative of the full range of interests but allowing a truly unlimited number of participants could make the process difficult to manage. Where an issue is generating a high degree of interest from stakeholders some process to balance the need to take into account a wide range of views with the practical realities of managing the process may need to be agreed."

4. What mechanism should there be for selecting members of issues groups?  In particular, how might we ensure effective participation from Nominet

"Membership of issues groups must be voluntary - if there is any coercion they will not work. Once the need for the issues group is established a call for participation should be circulated and volunteers should be selected from responses on a random basis. The groups should have a maximum size (TBD - maybe 12 or so?) and no one person or organisation (Nominet aside) should be represented on more than 2 groups at any one time."


"I feel that most issues groups should be open to all interested parties to participate online. If a face to face meeting is thought beneficial then some kind of selection procedure will be necessary. I'd suggest identifying categories of participant (Nominet member, Registrar, Govt bod, Business bod, IP lawyers, etc - as relevant to the issue in hand) and asking each constituency to nominate a rep.    I have no idea how Nominet members in particular are going to be motivated to participate."


"Short list of recommondations then a ballot"


"This partly depends how the issue groups work. If they are going to work by physical meetings around a table, there is a limit on the number of attendees that work. It would be good if discussion on issues primarily relevant to people with an industry background could take place by mailing list, but I recognise this is not a preferred medium for people outside the industry. Therefore, whilst I would welcome as wide input as possible, I would suggest that in practice it will be necessary to select members, partly to limit numbers, partly to ensure an appropriate balance of expertise and input, and partly to ensure that those concerned have the necessary time to turn up to meetings. However, the experiment with policy working groups in the past suggests that the problem may be insufficient number of people interested.  I would suggest that once it is decided that a new group should be created, Nominet members should be emailed by the secretariat, asking for those interested in participating; this information should also go to other interested communities. If insufficient people reply (or too few people with appropriate backgrounds reply - e.g. no-one with a policing background on an e-crime issue), the secretariat should try and actively recruit. If too many volunteer, a decision will need to be made on the basis of expertise. I would suggest there is some input from the standing committee on this."
 

"Good question: perhaps making sure that at least 2/3 of any broup is from the membership?"


"You need to broaden the membership of Nominet to include those would like to see enhanced trust in .uk , particularly those who businesses depend on customer confidence in their on-line services."


"not sure but feel it essential to have a good cross section of society - especially consumers"


"Effective participation should come from stakeholders - not just Members. A scoping document or study produced by a paid for professional help to define the issue. As part of this scoping, the blend of skills/experience/people to take the Group forward could be identified. Attention must be paid to ensure that a small group of similar members with similar views do not try to influence policy via a closed issue group."


"Initially, members should be selected by Nominet after open advertisement, applicants making public their claims for appointment and those appointed should serve for a year. Selection should be on the basis of members' representativeness (geography, type of stakeholder, gender etc) and expertise (which should be varied). After 10 months an election should be called with anyone able to vote - serving members and any others should be eligible to stand. Thereafter members should be appointed for not more than three years and a third of appointees should retire annually (meaning that a third of the first wave would retire after one year and so on). Members should serve for no more than two full three year terms. Members should be required to demonstrate contribution to discussions and the determination of group views when they stand for election."

"No fixed or strong view on this, as long as what emerges is credible and covers all the key bases."


"Open membership but with an obligation on the secretariat to ensure a balance of stakeholders.  Section on website to encouarge all to volunteer.  Report backs from the groupd made at the AGM"


"The stakeholder group sould suggest possible participants who could then be invited to attend. Once there are issue grouops established they should recommend potential speakers based on their knowledge/expertise within that area."


"The crucial point is ensuring that the members with most to add are aware of the existence of the group and, of course, aware of the need to resolve that particular issue.  It will also be important to answer the inevitable 'what's in it for me' question - demonstrate why members should give up their time to participate and make sure that there are clearly articulated outcomes that members can take away and, for example, use as evidence that there time was well spent."


"Early call for participation in and formation of any newly formed issue groups should be actively promoted within .UK community. An informal Birds of Feather (BOFs) group sessions time could be allotted prior or around each of the Nominet AGMs to gage interest from experts among Nominet members."


"The process should be open for all stakeholders to opt-in and should be widely publicised. Where there is a significant degree of interest then a process for nominating representatives of particular interest groups may need to be identified."

5.What issues might benefit from this approach?

"1. Dispute resolution  2. Intellectual property issues  3. SLD management"

   
"Relationships with other Registries, with particular reference to any rule changes that may be introduced by Nominet or another Registry.  Intellectual Property Rights issues/DRS.  Any issues that involve possible changes in the law of the land/relationship with regulatory authorities."


"Longer term rather than permanent"


"Ones that come up regularly and frequently. A cursory examination of past PAB agendas should answer this question."


"Industry standards is one.  Note also the example of EURid's Registrar Council of Conduct (of which I am a member) which approves registrars who subscribe to the registrar code of conduct and is available to take action against those, who, having subscribed to the code then do not adhere to it."


"Reducing the risk that .uk domain names are used for fraudulent and illegal purposes. Reducing the risk of impersonation. Disputes resolution, especially that related to ownership of IPR and/or brand names. Consultation processes =- including audiences and techniques - this is an evolving process  
crime and security"


"There are some issues such as IP Protections or Malicious Behaviours (Phishing etc) that  could be standing issue groups. These matters benefit all UK stakeholders.


"Complaints handling and representation of user interests." 


"Something which tracks security related and criminal misuse issues."


"Broader long term issues.  I suspect most of them will be Nominet looking outwards (ie Internet Governance issues vs registrar concerns"


"Crime - influencing a more effective police approach to rising crime.
Industry standards type issues, law enforcement, international , regulatory compliance.  I am sure there are others of more direct concern to those in the industry."


"e.g. Issues that deal with operational complexities of domain name system.
The format and duration of each issue group should be flexible and adaptable depending on the topic under discussion. If a permanent group is the best approach for a particular issue then this should be permitted."

6.What issues might benefit from this approach?

"Phishing and other related (possibly) criminal activity. Stance towards pornography with particular reference to child pornography. In general any issue that could include the participation of people/bodies who require an element of discretion as to what is being discussed/planned."


"More participation by interested parties"


"I think all groups should potentially have some "invited" membership. The question is surely whether the group should have *only* invited members. I think this is probably to be avoided where possible (though I recognise this may not always be possible). An alternative would perhaps be meetings which are closed (but the members might be volunteers) where the person concerned has signed an NDA."


"Ones where it is going to be difficult - e.g. in relation to domain name suspensions!"


"Sensitive commercial, financial or law enforcement issues."


"Co-operation with law enforcement to track and trace malpractice, including that involving  registrars whose processes are used by criminals, whether or not the registrars conduct is legal,"

"Issues where a high-level of expertise and experience is required or where confidential matters such as law enforcement are discussed."


"Particular aspects of criminal misuse."


"Very limited number, possibly where commercially confidential matters are being discussed"


"Unclear until understand what the priority issues are."


"Law enforecement, legal issues, security."


"For example, any issue group that looks into sensitive data like members or registry sensitive operational data."


"The process should be flexible depending on the particular issue under discussion and therefore the “closed group? format should be an option that is available should it be necessary. The overriding objective however must be to ensure that the policy making process is more open and accountable to stakeholders. Therefore the “closed group? format should be used sparingly and with the oversight of the standing committee who can challenge the decision to form a closed group if necessary."

9.How should members of the standing committee be identified?  In particular, how should Nominet member participation of the standing committee be chosen, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring balance representation?


"The standing committee is unnecessary."


"Members of the Standing Committee external to Nominet should be appointed by the Board.    Nominet members should be 50% appointed (hopefully including one rep of a large Registrar) and 50% elected on a OMOV basis."


"Ballot"


"Possibly a delegate for specific sectors and cross sections of business and or usage that have an interest in .uk"


"I am unconvinced the standing committee is necessary. My support for it would depend on how it is constituted. If it is the case that the executive feel that selecting a subset of stakeholders (from the membership and outside it) is useful for them, then I can see how this might work *if* it is possible to select a ommittee that actually turn up. But if the idea is to replicate the current PAB election process and PAB appointed member process to generate a committee that is meant to carry out no functions bar those set out above, I think the result will be to replicate the current PAB but worse, i.e. you will have little appointed member attendance, few people standing for election, but the committee will have even fewer things to discuss beyond the administrative."


"It should be run by one or two Board Directors and the Nominet Secretariat, reporting to the Board, advised by the PAB."


"Members should preferably be elected to represent a 'constituency' (e.g. ISPs or registrars) with which they have a substantive, identifiable, and demonstrable link.  I appreciate the question then arises, who should be allowed to vote in such a constituency?  All nominet members or only those who are themselves members of the constituency, in which case how and by whom can or should they be identified?"


"The definition of Businesses, Right-holders and Consumers needs more work because there are the most important categories - if the process is to command confidence"


"The groups appear to broad: for example there are some Members whose businesses turn-over millions of pounds and others whose domain activities would be described by the tax office as a hobby. Certainly further thought needs to be given to "Consumers" - this process is too important to allow a single domain name owner to self-identify as a "Consumer". Other institutions that depend on domain names such as Academic Organisations, Not-for-profits could be there."


"One third should be appointed by Nominet, one third by issue groups and one third by general election (following the procedure identified for issue groups).
Likely impact on the proces and the impact of error on each function"


"No fixed or strong view on this, as long as what emerges is credible and covers all the key bases."


"Some of the chairmaen of the groups should be on the standing committee.  The latter should probably be chaired by a senior Nominet staff member"


"Good starting place may be the distribution list for recent meeting on e-crime reduction partnership."


"E.g. It would be important to avoid majority of representation on the standing committee by any single stakeholder or member."


"I think that the range of stakeholders identified by Nominet for the standing committee is appropriate."

11.Do you have any further comments on the proposed new policy advisory process?

"It seems unwieldy in comparison to the current system, which has a very simple single point of contact for all interested parties (ie. the PAB). If I have a concern about policy I raise it with the PAB who debate it (presumably) and then make a recommendation - swift and uncomplicated. The reason for the change doesn't seem clear or compelling. Is something so inherently wrong with the current PAB system that it needs replacing?"


"Make it happen sooner rather than later?"


"I am confused by the proposals. Perhaps I read them too quickly, but they don't appear to describe who takes the decision on the selection of issue groups, who selects the chairs of them, how the standing committee would be selected/elected, who chairs it, whether any of these functions are paid or return expenses, how many meetings there would be, and so forth. All these could completely change the nature of the body. Questions like Q1 of this consultation are "mother's milk and apple pie". The new structure has the possibility of being a great improvement. However, I don't think there is sufficient detail given to tell whether or not this will be the case."


"The urgency of action - in order to prevent HMG action because .uk is "open to all" - does not come through"


"needs to be change and outcomes driven - not just a talking shop. Targets must be set and results measured."


"I believe that the PAB needs to operate within a narrow range. I have raised before the idea of Nominet providing seed funding for a Trade Association for the domain industry. I believe that such an Association is required to balance the PAB. It would be a better place for a range of issues of interest to the Membership of Nominet to be discussed. 

I also believe that all current members of the PAB who have contributed a great deal should be stood down in favour of new members. New blood is needed."    


"I have volunteered that Intellect would host a member of the enhanced secretariat for a week (or less) to see how we undertake similar tasks.  Not trying to say the processes have to be the same as Intellect's"


"This is a real opportunity to make sure that Nominet can respond to and take a lead on the myriad policy matters that arise in the industry.  The new structure should have clear rules and set criteria but should avoid being so rigid that the solutions never present themselves.  A key first step is the establishment of a credible and independent standing committee which has the over-riding concern that Nominet policy is consistently aimed at improving the .uk market for citizens and business as well as members"


"I support the overall goals of the newly proposed policy development regime and also support the specific mechanisms proposed. In particular, I believe that the proposed  system will enable more dynamic and constructive engagement with a broader range .uk policy stakeholders and so would represent a significant improvement over the existing development policy process."


"It is very important that there is an avenue through which stakeholders can raise issues relating to the management of domain names. These suggestions should be welcomed from any stakeholder within the wider internet user community whether they are businesses, consumers, the third sector or government. Given the range of potential stakeholders and the spectrum of issues that could be raised, it is sensible to convene groups to undertake detailed examinations of particular issues as and when they arise. This method would make the best use of the expertise and talents of the various stakeholders rather than having all issues considered through a standing committee of members who may have less interest or expertise in some of the topics debated. In order to demonstrate accountability to stakeholders and ensure that issues groups are genuinely representative it is important to have some independent oversight to provide a critical friend function and to challenge where necessary. This standing committee should not duplicate investigations undertaken by issues group but should ensure that each group has undertaken an objective and thorough analysis of each issue taking into account the full range of interests. It will be important that the new process is publicised widely and that stakeholders are aware of how they can input to the policy development groups. This will require greater outreach work and engagement by the secretariat."