Comments

"If it 'aint broke, don't fix it". The Government should get on with 'Governing' and keep well away from matters such as this. With all that is currently going on (and is still to come) their efforts and resources could be better used than interferring with what is a great set up.


Whilst I strongly support this recommendation, I believe that it is important that there is a transparent and equitable decision process to resolve potential conflicts between the above statements i.e. the may be occassion when the memebers interest conflict with putting internet users at the heart of the decision


I think there’s a danger of forgetting that the members do not necessarily best represent the registrants, collectively. It’s also worth bearing in mind that many organisations and individuals who are involved in .uk professionally may not be members: for example, many web hosting companies and independent designers and internal departments may choose a registrar based primarily upon price, rather than seeking membership themselves. Certainly, for freelancers, a £400 joining fee plus £100 per annum is incredibly difficult to justify, and the same is increasingly applies to organisations, too. One could contend that the voice one gains through membership is reward enough, but the counterargument is clearly that non-members interests need to be represented nonetheless. While I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that non-members should gain voting rights (I can’t see this being practical, if nothing else), the fact that nom-steer historically and now the Nominet Discussion Forum are restricted to members only seems to be an artificial restriction, especially when no non-members (i.e., “interested parties?) equivalent is available.


Although governments can do as they wish, supported by whichever business interests and their voting monies, I firmly believe that Nominet should remain in trust away from political intervention. The domain industry has members with wide ranging interests however all are fully paid up and wish to ensure the future of UK nic independence and self regulation and all should be able to ensure not only members but the UK, EU and world users are entertained and looked after within the UK domain space. As a group of members we can sure the right board is voted in with a one member one vote capacity and vote through on the important issues facing the UK name space as detailed in the report but one has to be realistic and not bring in protectionism, it may be a space for the UK but it's a space that the world visits and prospers within and enjoys visiting.


Self-Regulation is needed to continue fostering innovation and avoid unnecessary burdens: no one can predict what the Internet will be like in 5 years, neither in the UK nor anywhere else. Only self-regulation will bring the much needed flexibility and dynamics from the stakeholders themselves to be ready for new challenges.


Self-regulation is the only sane way for the internet to prosper and grow. Government is not in a position to regulate without hampering growth.


Based on recent performance, I'd be quite happy to see someone else have a go - if it's the government, so be it.


"member-led Nominet" and "all UK Internet users" is contradictory. It's one or the other.

We recommend all our customers to have .uk domain names as Nominet have always looked after both the members and end-users equally well, and the members are wide are varied and keep Nominet on track continuously.


Self-regulation is a cause worth fighting for. The internet moves faster than governments and although BIS have shown themselves to be very able and aware of issues in the industry, we cannot expect government to move quickly enough, even in a liberal democracy. Even though we work exclusively with major intellectual property owners who might be expected to favour regulation as the appropriate response to the recent governance crisis, we want self-regulation. Nominet has led the way in creating a very effective DRS; it has established a phishing lock; it requires registrants to keep their contact details up to date; it plays an important role on the world stage; it publishes information very helpful to registrars and indeed registrants in its Industry Reports; it has policies in place with skilled staff who can assist when complex situations develop - such as a registrant going into liquidation; it offers the PRSS - controlled access to registrant data is vital; it provides Account Managers to inform, advise and help with issues; its biling is fast and accurate. I am not at all certain that this operational excellence would be continued if Nominet is looking over its shoulder at Government masters. 


Nominet relies heavily on the relationships established between its registrars and their customers the registrants.  As such, we believe that it is right for Nominet to be member-led while ensuring that, notwithstanding this commitment, Internet users will be placed at the heart of .uk policy.
Nominet relies heavily on the relationships established between its registrars and their customers the registrants. As such, we believe that it is right for Nominet to be member-led while ensuring that, notwithstanding this commitment, Internet users will be placed at the heart of .uk policy.


The membership setup currently is flexible and should tighten in terms requirements to become a memeber of nominet. No kiddy registrars should be allowed to operate thus creating a problem for the rest of the members.


I agree with the statement above but don't recognise its wording to strictly match that on the consultation web pages.

Like .uk domains Nominet membership should be restricted to UK users. In addition users should not be allowed to hide behind "private individual" as they do now.


I believe a "member-led" (as opposed to, for instance, Government led) Nominet is right for the industry. However, Nominet must recognise that many of its members are also its channel to market (with their "registrar" hat on). Being "member led" should not detract from the commercial imperative of treating customers and "channel partners" as such in a commercially sensible manner. Golf clubs are member led, and Nominet is a commercial organisation, not a Golf club, and should behave as such.


The industry which makes the internet operate is at the hart of its own regulation. and is able to adapt to change more quickly.

It is doubtful that any government body could provide the dedication, service and profesionalism as Nominet (and its staff) in its present form.


I am all for wider stakeholder representation and wouldwelcome a more diverse representation both at PAB level and amongst the membership.


"membership at the heart of .uk" is a meaningless statement, and as above, some of this "diversity of internet users" is quickly damaging the value of .uk domains through fraudulent use.
Self-regulation, rather than government regulation is something we must retain.


I think that the membership base should be much broader and that any link between membership and registrar status should be removed. Leading to my view that the cost of membership should be reduced (and possibly a separate fee introduced for registrars). I understand the need to remove Article 19A (on domain pricing issues) but would hope that it could be a 'delete & replace' option leaving in place some assurance that members would retain some authority regarding any changes to the membership fees.


There is a concern about quite how the Nominet board hopes to engage with wider stakeholders when it currently finds it so hard to do so with the majority of the existing membership, however, as a member who has become more active in recent years, we wish to be able to continue to do so.  We feel that membership reforms are needed in order for the implementation of this recommendation to be effective. Mandatory voting and the separation of membership itself from the domain discount are both options.  Regulation of who is allowed to be a member is, in our opinion, essential if you are to extract meaningful input from the majority rather than the few.  We look forward to continuing our relationship with Nominet going forward but wish more others would do the same.

It is only the final point which I have issue with.  If the current membership structure stands, with the current voting structure, then I don't believe the Government will be happy with this.  We need all stakeholders to become members.  It may be that membership might need to be free.  Voting rights would then have to be one member one vote and not dependent on the amount of domains held. Without this fundamental change I can't see Nominet being able to move forward in the way in which the Government wants it to, regardless of any other changes they bring in.


Governance structures to ensure end-user/registrant representation need to be put in place as quickly as possible after the initial changes.


100% agree with this. If any measures were taken to disrupt this, custom would just go elsewhere.


If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Keep up the good work.


Nominet members have almost no real power. All power at Nominet is held by the executive management.



These statements may conflict. Running .uk for "all UK Internet users" and then allowing only "members" to lead could mean some "users'" needs are marginalised if no "member" is ready to champion their cause. This could be read as though we're running the UK Internet for members' benefit.


The Nominet model has been adopted by several other country registrars, I believe that Nominet is a beacon on how it should be done and Government regulation is neither required or desired.


Nominet operates perfectly as it is, the new proposals will serve to make it even more of a perfect service.


It was interesting to see in one of the videos that the interviewee said registrars don't have time to get involved in something they see as a distraction.  I think it's a credit to Nominet that we don't feel we need to get involved - I'm very happy with how things work - it has developed to its current state without my involvement and I want it to continue to do so.  If I need to get more involved in the short term in order to ensure I don't need to be so involved in the longer term, I'm happy to do so!


As a member of only 8 months, I have always had a fantastic service from the support staff. I find the technical systems are elegant and advanced. Having dealt with many other registrars such as .de .ie. it .fr It is clear that the regulations set in place by them (specifically .ie) is damaging those economies more than it is supposedly helping protect them. Continuing with .ie as an example, they insist on registrants proving claim over the domain they wish to register, this manual process while well-intentioned has the completely opposite effect from its intention (i.e. to safeguard the name space against 'rogue' registrations be they for cyber squatting, or parked domains etc.) The fact is their are only 130K or so domains currently in registration in .ie (in total), and the policy is holding back many legitimate companies from being able to registrar domains for purposes other than the aforesaid mentioned. I have many clients who just ignore the .ie business or approach the problem in another way (rank a dot com instead) etc. Over regulation as above is clearly damaging the economy in ireland no matter how well intentioned. I have a client who has to register a business name for every .ie domain that he has to registrar, that's an added cost of I think 20 euros per domain along with a lot on unnecessary paperwork. Yet he has no intention of cyber squatting nor parking domains.    I have seen some banter between some members regarding the secondary market. For some it's a thorn, for others a business. I use it as a business, but I do not partake in parking domains, nor cybersquatting,  nor advertising. My business model is one which helps UK and other companies succeed in the Google rankings, it is not SEO per say but in the same area and I use second hand domains to this end. The end result of which is many companies based in the UK and elsewhere creating considerable value and income for the general economy and this is achieved precisely because the .uk registry is so well managed. It would not be possible with the .com model, nor with many of the others. what can I say, a job well done? 


Again, as a set of targets rather than any sort of reflection of the current state of affairs, I think they're laudable.


I believe Nominet have always done this and hope Nominet will be allowed to continue to do this.


Without membership being the guiding principle I feel the situation can only decline.