Comments

This is of great concern to me as I can see underlying factors for the questioning. Many registrars and members rely on renewals of registrations, supply and demand, turnover in the short term rather than the long term.    To ensure equality all vested parties should be treated equally, all registrants the same, all members the same. The scary part of any government intervention is knowing that nanny doesn't always know best and under a socialist government the worry is more than under any other especially when domains are so tangibly entwined in many of our business interests which we hope only helps support the uk name space as well as our own interests. I can envisage under government control, regarding price structure, that certain domains could reach hundreds or thousands per renewal. Whilst this may serve some huge business, I wholly believe that this will deny a large percentage of entrepreneurs from setting out on the internet in the uk name space thus degrading uk domain names.    Your statement in this part is vague but from what I've read pricing and market conditions and interest groups comes down to several factors, trading related domain names, domain availability, domain security and any possible auction system either cherry picked or with restricted status.    I firmly believe in first come first served, looking to other country nics where higher prices are set and more regulation, only devalues world interest and opportunity, the current government intervention reads as protectionism in the very worst form, this will devalue uk domain space and interest.    I believe trust and security can be offered without too much change. I understand the need for safe shopping, for creditable security in ownership of domain names and for a system of rights over trading names, however raising prices and or reacting to market conditions without proper consultation from members and business at large will see great harm done.    There are whole industries reliant on the uk name space, reselling of domains and churning of names within development, building minisites and mini-businesses within affiliate marketing to wholsesale dropshipping and individual shops online which can be destoyed by mere pricing changes or domain availability at cost and first come first served.  I do not trust government to be able to secure these industries and allow beginner entry and a first come first served basis and world urge the board to find a way to ensure entrepreneurs are not disembowled before their first step onto the net.  I do believe that there are ways to make the membership and board accountable and to ensure any secular member activity can be offered to a wider section of the public therefore allowing access to the nation and world at large without any protectionism or raised renewal fees, it goes without saying that if offered a chance to vote on lengthened domain renewals as offered in top level domains, then I would vote.


registrars and stakeholders should be engaged and consulted for a variety of subjects, not only for price changes.


Adequate provision should be made for the large number of 'passive members' of Nominet. Whatever their reasons for membership, they *are* members, and their voices should, and need to be, heard.


I would agree with a commitment to respect the opinion of the membership as gathered by a simple majority vote of the membership in respect of any pricing changes. A commitment to engage the membership is not enough.

I can think of examples where Nominet fails on all at least two points.


Your assertion that "giving the Board control over pricing would make Nominet more democratic" is so semantically wrong as to be ridiculous, as I'm sure you'll see if you pause to think about it. I sense from the context that 'sectional capture' is the issue. If this is the case I must guess - because there's no information - that registrars votes are in some way proportional to the number of names on their tag. Would it not be more sensible to change the voting structure to address the problem directly, rather than making loosely targetted rule changes which will bring their own problems.


Laudable aims but if you do not spell out the how these words are meaningless.


Compared to other TLD registars there is nobody else that offers such a straight forward and cost effective pricing structure.


NO as I have said, this is not an issue for the government but it those resposible should be accountable to say an organisation like UKAS.


Giving registrars the right to approve or reject pricing policy has always felt uncompetitive to us. Registrants and those who depend upon .uk need to be considered just as much as those with a vested interest in selling .uk domain names.  I hope Nominet will not just be responsive to market conditions: sometimes I feel Nominet might lead instead of following. Nominet's overview and the skills of its executive staff can help the UK to maintain a leading place in the development of global internet strategy, for example.     In relation to the UK, the best for the most is not always going to be the strategy that is in the best interests of registrants. However, provided the interests of all stakeholders are fairly considered, I trust Nominet and its leaders to deliver security, stability and sound governance.

Pricing is just fine - perhaps only one suggestion and that is to have period options, ie instead of 2 years, offer 3, 5, 10, etc. I know AutoBill can be used but one bill for 10 years sounds a lot simpler!


I agree with this however the pricing should be fixed and we the registrars should be able to vote and consider the options laid out by Nominet. The current pricing is fair and should stay the same.


Pricing should continue to be controlled by the membership. Aspects of the pricing proposal would be acceptable.  However, the commitment is to consider the positions of registrars and stakeholders before changing pricing, where this should be an undertaking to consult registrars and stakeholders and where such registrars or stakeholders disagree it should remain an obligation that the membership approve any changes by vote.


We would strongly like to see the equality of all Nominet members be clearly stated in its constitution and not only be a goal of the board.    Volume discounts would cause smaller members to buy from larger ones. This is not something we would like to see happen as it would reduce Nominet membership diversity. 


I think .uk pricing is very reasonable. 


Agree


I have great concerns regading the removal of Article 19A as this couples product (registration etc) pricing and membership pricing. I would be happy to see the board have full control over product pricing but am unhappy about giving the board full control over membership pricing which I would prefer to stay with membership approval for. Effectively I would like to see article 19A kept but amended to remove the words 'or registration fees'    Given that all the arguments for this change are based around registration pricing, I don't see a need for the removal of the ballot on changes to membership fees.


Fair and flexible pricing is key to the development of Internet accross the full range of UK stakeholders - from the largest commercial orginisation to the smallest not for profit group.


The fact that via the current procedure it is currently almost impossible to effect a price change one way or the other suggests to us that the existing price levels are just about right. We also feel that the procedure itself is prohibitive to positive change.  The inability to offer temporary promotional rates when it is felt that it would aid the market is one issue but it is not our belief that domain or membership pricing should be controlled by the membership itself anyway. In recent years that has been proven not to work and we trust that if the board were to take control of pricing that and decisions to make changes would be made responsibly and fairly.  We are dynamic enough to reacte to prices going either up or down in such a way that we do not believe the way our business operates will be affected too greatly.


I believe that there should be no charge for a .uk registrant transfer. It appears to be entirely portal made changes with no human interaction, thus, no reason for a charge.


It is absolutley critical that members are treated fairly and equally.  There should be no special discounts diven to members on the basis of their volumes or anything else.


I agree in general, but not to the extent that technical good sense is over-ridden by administrative nonsense. The technical integrity of the DNS is paramount.


I think the pricing commitment should include reconsidering whether .uk domains are now too cheap. At 5GBP per year, domain squatting has become a much more serious problem for more legitimate would-be registrants than it was at the previous higher price points.





It's crucial particularly for small registrars like my company that the playing field remains level, not just so that we can set a competitive price but also to ensure that the name space does not get sucked dry.

Although the cost of .uk domains is not prohibitive, Nominet should also strive to reduce the costs of .uk domains to it's members where possible so these savings can be passed on to the endusers, surther encoraging the growth of .uk.


I don't see that market conditions have much to do with "hold[ing] .uk in trust for the nation".  You can be a business or a trust, but not both,  Personally, I'd like you as a trust. 


In being responsive to market conditions I would not want Nominet to lose sight of the founding principals. I would also like to see a fairer pricing structure when dealing direct with Nominet rather tha bulk discounts.


I fully agree, the times have changed and with a monopolistic position for .UK-domains, price changes need special consideration.


I believe Nominet have always done this and will continued to do this.


My main concern, and it's a concern I believe is shared by many members is pricing. I would be in favour of  many of the proposed changes if, and only if members retained control over pricing. There's no justification for increasing registration/renewal fees and I suspect that this is what would happen if we the membership do not retain control over this important issue. Safeguarding control over pricing is in the interests of the internet community as a whole.