A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y  Z

A

Access limits

January 2007 - The PAB resolved to accept the recommendations set out in the paper headed 'Access Limits Policy' (pdf)


Advance notification of expiry to Tag Holders

December 2003 - The PAB resolved to recommend to the CoM that it investigate a system whereby tag holders are given the option to receive additional emails forewarning them of imminent expiry of domain names on their tag.


Anonymity of voting

February 2004 - Resolution: The PAB noted that there should be no restriction on individual PAB members revealing how they voted, and resolved that should PAB members wish their individual vote to be recorded in the minutes, they should be able to demand this; however, the PAB resolved that it would not as a matter of course minute the manner in which each PAB member voted.


Appointed organisations

December 2002 - The PAB recommended to the CoM that they increase the number of appointed organisations to 8 and that they carry out wider consultation on potential organisations to join the PAB, particularly with a view to identifying further consumer representation.

May 2005 - The PAB resolved to recommend to the Board that the appointment of the British Chambers of Commerce to the PAB be replaced by the appointment of a consumer focused, or small business focused, or voluntary sector based organisation, and requested that the executive find candidate organisations who are willing to serve on the PAB and present a list to the next PAB meeting.


Automaton AUP

July 2005 - The PAB resolved to recommend to the Board that it adopts the policy principles for acceptable use of the Automaton (and related systems and processes) contained in the paper presented (pdf) to the PAB. The PAB further resolved to recommend to the Board that, consistent with the PAB's recommended policy under Agenda item 11, the development and implementation of acceptable use mechanisms corresponding with these policy principles is carried out by the Executive without further consultation with the PAB, on the understanding that any changes to systems or processes are properly documented and communicated to (and where appropriate consulted upon) with tag-holders.


Automaton date restrictions

February 2004 - Resolution: The PAB considered the paper presented by the CoM, and recommended that it should be implemented subject to the following amendments:

1. Under Section 3.2, "seven days" should be changed to  "three days"; and
   
   CoM response: Accepted
   
2. Under section 3.1, the new field should become mandatory on an aggressive timescale without further reference to the PAB.
   
   CoM response: Accepted
   

Automaton name server check

January 2005 - The PAB resolved to recommend that the check on the TLD of nameserver records held in the register move from the zone file build process to the Automaton at the point of registration or modification and that any operation that fails this check at this point is prevented from completing and returns an appropriate error message.


Automaton template

October 2003 - The PAB resolved to accept the interface changes described in section 3.1 of the paper (headed tidying contact details).

The PAB noted section 3.2 of the paper (headed 'Pull' transfer mechanism), and resolved that no move to a 'pull' system of tag change should be instituted at this stage.

CoM response: Executive team requested to implement.

B

Business and technical system report

February 2003 - The PAB recommends that Nominet publish a quarterly report summarizing upcoming changes to business and technical systems which are likely to affect interfaces with members and other stakeholders.


Byron review and policy statement

July 2008 - The PAB resolved to draw the attention to the Nominet Board and of Nominet members to the Byron review (pdf) on the risks to children from exposure to potentially harmful or inappropriate material on the Internet and in video games, Safer Children in a Digital World.

The PAB recommends that Nominet monitor the work of the new UK Council on Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS).

C

Changes to the Template

December 2001 - The PAB recommended that the new Registrant fields should be mandatory, but acknowledged that further streamlining and a set of definitions was necessary.


Child abuse images

March 2005 - The PAB resolved to recommend that the Board reject Option 3 proposed in the PAB paper 'Child pornography allegations in .uk' (pdf)

(Agreed. Option 3 is rejected by the Board.)

The PAB resolved to recommend that the Board make the PRSS service available to the IWF such that they can detect registrations of domain names containing potentially dubious strings relating to child pornography immediately upon their registration.

(Agreed and passed to the Executive for action)

The PAB resolved to recommend that the Board confirm to the Executive that it should cancel domain names the maintenance on the register of which, having received legal advice, appear to Nominet would be likely to result in criminal liability (whether in terms of an illegal advertisement under the Protection of Children Act 1978 or otherwise) and prevent further registrations of the same domain name which would have the same effect.

(Agreed. The Board confirms this to the Executive)

The PAB resolved to recommend to the Board that it should actively promote discussion at an international level through CENTR of how to deal with the issue of domain names attached to content containing child pornography, and to seek further input from IWF on this issue.

(Noted and passed to the Executive for action.)


Code of conduct

September 2006 - The PAB resolved to adopt in principle the proposals in the draft PAB code of conduct paper (pdf), and requested the Executive produce a draft code of conduct for consideration at the sub committee with a view to presentation to the PAB at the November meeting.

January 2007 - The PAB resolved to adopt the 'Code of Conduct'.



Code of practice/ Strengthened Tag Holder Agreement

December 2001 - The PAB recommended that Nominet enforces its existing Tag Holder Agreement. This recommendation was made in full knowledge that some members would not welcome Nominet taking a harder line.


Communications and consultations paper

June 2003 - The PAB recommends that the CoM approve the PAB Communication & Consultation Paper (pdf) as presented to the meeting, and hereby adopts the paper as its working procedure.

D

Data structures

December 2004 - The PAB resolved to recommend the introduction of new data structures in line with the proposal presented by the executive and the resultant change in tag-holder interfaces; this is to be introduced subject to an open consultation to finalise the details, through an open mailing list, chaired and managed by the Nominet executive.


Declaration of Interests

The PAB resolved to recommend that the new Declaration of Interest form be adopted.


Dissolved registrants

November 2005 - The PAB resolved to recommend that the policy for dealing with domain names registered to dissolved registrants be changed as detailed in section 4.2 of the PAB paper "Domain names registered to dissolved registrants" (pdf)


DNSSEC and WHOIS abuse

April 2004 - The PAB resolved to confirm its policy that Nominet should continue to protect its zonefiles, and allow access to its database only under controlled circumstances.


Domain Availability Checker

On the basis of a vote in favour by the majority of members, the PAB requested the suspension of the changes to the DAC for further review and asked Nominet to provide a briefing paper on the new mechanism.


Domain names involved in criminal activity

The PAB resolved to recommend to Nominet that: On receiving a request from the police or another law enforcement agency to take down a domain name which is suspected to be involved in fraudulent or criminal activity, should take action providing it believes there are reasonable grounds for suspicion and that due process has been followed.

The PAB also recommends that Nominet look into ways of helping registrars to follow best practice.


Domaining

November 2007 - Wording for a statement on Domaining was agreed:

"Nominet recognises that the sale of domain names is legitimate so long as no third party rights are infringed."


Domain name re-registration

March 2008 - The PAB recommend the following policy principles with regards to domain name re-registration to Nominet:

1. The system should be fair, and should not incentivise people to share resources/act in concert
2. There should be low barriers to entry for all registrars so they can truly compete for cancelled domains
3. One party should not be able to unfairly disadvantage another
4. The system should aim to prevent excessive use of resources on tech/complaints systems at Nominet
5. An even distribution of registrants should be able to obtain cancelled domains
6. The ability to dropcatch should not prevent a registrar's ability to do other normal tasks
7. Should your ability to dropcatch depend on the number of names on your tag? The larger registrars are being disadvantaged because they need their access to do other things.
8. Cost neutrality
9. Mechanism should be understandable to the average registrant
10. There should be disincentives for hammering Nominet's technical systems

DRS Policy

June 2001 - The Key changes were as follows:

1. The Bad Faith definition has been replaced by a defined term "Abusive Registration." It was agreed that this should now read: "A Domain Name that has been registered and/or is being used in a manner which, without due cause, takes unfair advantage or is detrimental to the Complainant's rights"
2. The reference to the criminal standard of proof has been removed
3. Changes have been made to the treatment of Tribute and Protest sites. Recourse is limited to sites "operated solely" in tribute or criticism of a business or person. Where the domain name is identical to the name in which the Complainant asserts rights, the burden shifts to the Registrant to show that it is not an abusive registration.
4. Regarding Appeals, the panel now consider Appeals on facts and procedure. Nominet can refer questions to the panel, and although appeal decisions will be published for guidance, they will not have precedent values.
5. The word limit of 2000 is retained, but excludes mandatory inclusions and annexes.
6. The Complainant "may" submit a reply but does not have to. The word limit is increased from 1000 to 2000.
7. The "Three strikes and you're out" policy is now limited in time.

The PAB approved the policy with minor amends as incorporated above.


DRS Review

January 2007 - The PAB resolved to accept the recommendations set out in the report of the DRS subcommittee (pdf), subject to the following: (i) the final and penultimate sentences of the paragraph starting "We believe that isolated offers to sell a domain" should be transposed and (ii) that the section headed 'Other issues' be removed. The PAB further resolved to encourage Lord Erroll and James Conaghan to submit individual responses on the latter issue.


DRS Summary decisions

The PAB requested that Nominet look into ways of explaining the basis for summary decisions.

E

Expanded whois

June 2002 - The PAB discussed the issue of having ex-directory listing for the new WHOIS, which had been tabled on the pab-suggest list.  Arguments were put for and against this position.

The Executive outlined its recent discussions with the Information Commissioner.  The discussions indicated that it may be neccessary to delay the go-live date of the new WHOIS from 1 July 2002 to allow time to consider the comments of those who had expressed concern about the planned expansion and for further communication with the Information Commission.

In light of the above, the PAB therefore recommended that the CoM should go ahead with their decision to publish WHOIS data, subject to careful consideration of Data Protection legislation and legal advice.


Expenses policy

March 2007 - The Board approved the PAB expenses policy.


F

Future of the PAB

July 2009 - It was agreed:

1. That there needed to be a better induction process for those engaging in the policy advisory role, and that it would be useful to draw up a job description for members. (This obviously depends on the finally agreed structure and nature of the role.)
2. The nature of the PAB role needed to change. This was seen as providing a light-touch coordinating function for ensuring effective communication between stakeholders and the Nominet Board.
3. It was agreed that further discussion would be needed to refine the model and look at the nature of a coordinating function and the level that a coordinating group would operate. This would also need to look at resources for the agreed function.
4. The PAB agreed to invite the Board to consider this idea and request its approval for the approach identified in the discussion. The PAB wanted to continue the discussion of a radical review of the way that we ensured effective communication between stakeholders and Nominet.
5. The PAB agreed on the importance of identifying issues where Nominet might need to ensure active engagement with wider stakeholders.
6. The Executive should carry out stakeholder mapping and identify how to liaise and work with these groups effectively and on what issues.

The PAB agreed to invite the Board to consider the suggestions generated from the discussion and sought its support for continued discussion on a radical review of the way that we ensure effective communication between stakeholders and Nominet.

September 2009 - The PAB agreed the resolutions outlined in the meeting report here.

November 2009 - The PAB agreed the resolutions outlined in the meeting report here.

G

Geographic SLDs

October 2001 - Clive Feather outlined the key findings of the sub committee meeting. Their recommendations were either to create no geographic SLDs or to create a single SLD (such as in.uk) that would encompass all regions.

The PAB agreed to adopt the recommendations of the sub committee (pdf), and publish the meeting report as an official PAB position paper. This will be announced to members and put on the Nominet web site.

I

IDN

January 2007 - The PAB resolved to accept the recommendations set out in the report of the IDN subcommittee (pdf).

March 2006 - The PAB resolved that Nominet should introduce IDN as soon as possible with reasonable support following an Executive response and further discussion at PAB level.


INCOP

August 2001 - The PAB recommended that Fay:

1. With the assistance of Nominet's lawyers, explore the competition issues of a Code of Practice with the DTI
2. Try to consult with more members who may be opposed to the idea of a mandatory Code of Practice
3. Bear in mind that 53% of Tag Holders register less than 5 names per year.

Industry standards consultation

November 2005 - The PAB resolved to recommend that the Board proceed with the consultation detailed in the paper "Raising Industry Standards." (pdf)


Internet Governance Forum

July 2006 - The PAB resolved to support the Executive's position on the Internet Governance Forum and to encourage .uk stakeholders to involve themselves in the process.


Issues register from CoM

April 2004 - The PAB resolved to request the Council of Management to provide an "issues register" tracking the state of previous recommendations to supplement the Council of Management's feedback paper.

L

Lock states

September 2008 - The PAB put forward the recommendations in the Lock States  paper (pdf).

March 2009 - The PAB resolved to recommend to Nominet that: Nominet should implement a "Please notify me if my registrar doesn’t renew my domain name" lock. This causes the system to act as though the DNR flag is not set and a reminder email will go to the registrant to notify them that the domain name is due for renewal. The lock can only be set and removed by the registrant.

Nominet should implement a Phishing lock to allow a registrar to lock a domain name that has been used for phishing. This would prevent the domain name being moved to another registrar and could remove the name servers or redirect the domain to a standardised information page. It will be clearly stated to registrars that this lock is only to be used in cases of phishing and that abuse will be severely punished. This lock will be reviewed after six months and usage will be carefully monitored during this period.


ltd and plc registrations

March 2006 - The PAB resolves that the rules for the .ltd.uk and .plc.uk Second Level Domains should be changed to permit registration by all bodies entitled by law to use limited or public limited company (as applicable) in their corporate name (including those entitled to use the abbreviations and/or Welsh equivalents) and recorded as such by the registrar of companies.

May 2008 - The PAB resolved to recommend that Nominet suspend .ltd and .plc domain name registrations with characters such as @, / and other characters permitted by Companies House but not domain name rules whilst the situation is investigated.

July 2008 - The PAB discussed the paper .ltd rules.  The PAB agreed the resolution to the board as set out in the Annex attached to the July 08 meeting report.

M

me.uk

August 2001 - The PAB approved the me.uk applications and made the following recommendations (with two abstentions):

1. There should be a personal SLD
2. It should be called me.uk
3. There should be no dots or a firstname.lastname distinction
4. A suitable start-up mechanism, and the legal implications of this, should be investigated by the Executive
5. A suitable Dispute Resolution Service should be looked at
   

N

Name change to Policy Advisory Body

November 2006 - The PAB resolved to accept that its name be changed to the Policy Advisory Body.


.net.uk

February 2003 - The PAB recommends that no changes be made to the rules for .net.uk at the present time, because the issues are not sufficiently tractable for the consultation to be an effective use of time and resources. The PAB recommends that Nominet re-examine the changes for .net.uk registrations on the basis of cost recovers as part of the next pricing review.

July 2006 - The PAB resolved to accept the conclusions of the .net uk working group chair that the group is unable to come to a consensus on any proposed changes to the .net.uk SLD. The PAB further resolved that the rules should remain unchanged and that the working group should be closed.

March 2007 - The PAB agreed that the statement (pdf) should be communicated to Nominet's membership.

O

One and Two letter domains

August 2002 - The PAB therefore recommend that while the business risk to Nominet of releasing these domains remained greater than the risk of not releasing them, Nominet should retain the current restrictions on one and two letter domain names.

The PAB also recommended that one character and two letter registrations in .ltd and .plc should be allowed. It also recommended the possibility of allowing one and two letter domain names in any new SLDs.

P

PAB paper submission deadlines

June 2004 - The PAB resolved to amend the PAB rules such that the PAB secretariat has the discretion to defer to the next meeting those papers arriving less than two working days before the deadline for the publication of PAB papers.


PAB performance

May 2008 - The PAB resolved that the Chair submit to the Board a report on performance.


PAB purpose and definition

February 2003 - The PAB recommended the adoption of the PAB purpose and definition paper, with the substitution under the section 'Quorum' of the first sentence for "In order to achieve a quorum, there shall be at least 7 members in a meeting."


PAB register of interests

July 2006 - The PAB resolved to adopt the Register of Interests set out at Annex B of the "Governance Review PAB issues" paper, and resolved that the Register should be maintained by the Company Secretary, reviewed as part of the annual audit, and a report included in the Annual Report.


PAB rules

October 2004 - With regard to the PAB Governance Recommendations, the PAB resolved to accept recommendations 1-6 (inclusive). The PAB resolved that its rules should be amended such that the PAB chair's term should be limited to three years, but that there should remain no limit on the term of elected members. The PAB resolved to recommend to the Council of Management that they should encourage as many people to stand for the PAB as possible.

January 2005 - The PAB resolved to request the board that the executive redraft the PAB rules to clarify them and resolve such ambiguities and logical defects as have been identified, in each case with minimal policy changes, and to present the draft changes as a paper to the next PAB meeting.

January 2007 - The PAB resolved to recommend a change to the PAB rules such that removal of a PAB member can be effected by 75% of all PAB members (irrespective of how many attend the meeting considering the issue) excluding the member under consideration, and that postal or proxy votes should be permitted.

November 2007 - The PAB recommended that the rules should be changed to make it clear that the Board can appoint either one or two of its members to the PAB.

May 2008 - The PAB Chair resolved to ask the Board whether clause 4.2 of the PAB rules should be amended in the light of the Board's decision only to appoint one representative to the PAB.


Phishing

July 2007 - The PAB proposes Nominet adopts the following policy on Phishing:

Because Phishing is a criminal activity which can adversely affect Internet users' trust and confidence in the online environment, and because it is highly unlikely to be solved by a single intervention, the PAB encourages Nominet to participate in self- or co-regulatory responses through a series of co-operative activities with other agents to include education of users and improved security measures. the PAB advises Nominet not to duplicate existing efforts by other agencies.

July 2008 - The PAB resolved to recommend that the PAB, the Board and the executive work with other key stakeholders to prepare a joint industry-law-enforcement workshop to help improve understanding of options and cooperation with other organisations.


Phishing Lock

May 2009 - The PAB agreed that the phishing lock should be extended to other domain names suspected of being used in connection with other criminal activity. The PAB suggested that Nominet should look at extending the lock after the planned review following 6 months usage.

November 2009 - The PAB confirmed their recommendation that the phishing lock should be extended to domain names suspected of being used in connection with any criminal activity.


Policy development process

May 2006 - The PAB resolved to recommend the adoption of the policy development process in section 7 of the "Governance Review PAB issues" (pdf) paper.


Positive renewals

June 2004 - The PAB resolved to approve the recommendations of the Executive as detailed in Sections 4 and 5 of the Executive's paper reviewing Positive Renewals (pdf), and, subject to the foregoing, to endorse the current mechanism of operation of the Positive Renewals procedure.


Pricing review

October 2001 - The Executive made specific recommendations for fee changes for memberships and registration/renewals. After substantial discussion, the PAB made changes to these recommendations and agreed to forward them to the CoM for their approval and, if supported by the CoM, to the members for voting. It was agreed that following the CoM meeting a teleconference could be arranged if necessary.


PRSS

December 2002 - The CoM had proposed changes to the PRSS which include limiting access to a defined number of searches and providing a better search interface. The contract, however, would still specifically prohibit spam, marketing use etc.

The PAB supported these recommendations and encouraged the CoM to speak to the current subscribers in order to gauge the best parameters for the new service.


Publication of tag stats

January 2005 - The PAB resolved to recommend the policy change of publishing monthly statistics about tags, including the number of domains per tag, the number of new registrations per month, the number of new renewals per month, and the number transferred in and out per month. The PAB further resolved to recommend that publication should take place on a fixed day each month, and that reasonable warning of the policy change could be given to tagholders.


Publication of voting rights

August 2002 - The PAB were in favour of increased transparency and recommended to the CoM that it publish the voting rights subject to there being an acceptable legal risk.


Publish £5 fee on web site

December 2001 - The PAB resolved that the £5 fee should be published on the web site, and that Nominet should continue to maintain its policy of openness and fairness for all stakeholders. However, the Executive was asked to clarify the web site text to explain clearly why there is a price differential for members and non-members.

R

Raising industry standards

November 2005 - The PAB supports the paper "Raising Industry Standards" (pab) and the full public consultation and associated outreach, early in 2006 as planned by the Executive team. The PAB agrees to give a written response to the proposals within the consultation paper. The PAB resolved to form a subcommittee to prepare a draft response for the January PAB meeting and agreed that Eric Ramage should chair the subcommittee.


Registrant Terms and Conditions

February 2004 - The PAB considered the paper presented (pdf) by the CoM, and recommended that the CoM should put it out for consultation subject to the following amendments:

1. The PAB recommends that the CoM should reconsider its proposals under Section 2.2 of the paper marked "should the registrant cease to exist," and instead the CoM should allow legal successors of registrants who have died or otherwise ceased to exist, within the period of registration, to execute a valid transfer form in respect of a domain name, together with the appropriate fee; further, that Nominet will not otherwise deal with such successors unless and until such a valid transfer form has been executed and the appropriate fee paid;
   
   CoM response: Accepted
2. The PAB recommends, with respect to Section 2.3 of the paper, that the only criterion to make a name "correct" under the terms in the current document should be that it is both good for contact, and that it is not deceptive; further that the term "correct" should not be used as it is misleading;
   

Renewals changes

October 2002 - The PAB considered the renewals proposals as presented by Alex Bligh in some detail and endorsed the recommendation of the PAB subcommittee on Domain Name renewals, as detailed in the White Paper on Domain Name Renewals Version 2.00, with the following notes and modifications:

• After expiry, Nominet should send out the suspension notice via email and post to the registrant giving 7 days notice. A domain should then be suspended 7 days after it has expired. "Suspended" means that the DNS servers will not be entered into the .UK zone file, however they will be maintained in the Nominet register and reinstated at the next zone rebuild if a domain is paid for.
• That domain names which are not paid for beyond the normal terms should be "wound back" as detailed in the white paper. If a domain name were "wound back" then the 7-day count down would begin again, with the registrant being notified.
• The PAB noted that if a domain were positively renewed with ISP A and then retagged to ISP B, if ISP A then doesn't pay for it, Nominet would "wind back" the renewal, resetting its expiry date to what it was before ISP A's renewal request. If, as consequence, the domain name had then expired, the 7 day grace period would begin. ISP B could renew the domain immediately after the winding back, whether or not the grace period had begun, as the domain would have less than six months to expiry. Of course, ISP B may monitor the WHOIS to determine the state of the domain and when this might be. The PAB noted that WHOIS should be particularly clear as to which ISP is in default of their terms, especially in the above scenario.
• The PAB recommended that a per-domain name option, for automatic renewal, be instituted, in a manner similar to the 'recur-bill' field, i.e. defaulting to 'off' and being set to 'off' on tag change. To enable this option, the tag holder may set to an integer value, which is the number of days prior to the domains expiry (between 1 and 182, as per the positive renewal window). When the relevant point in time arrives, Nominet will raise an invoice in the usual manner that a tag holder may not query or cancel (i.e. no credit notes).
• PAB restated its support for continuation of the 'detag' facility to allow the tag holder to identify to Nominet a permanent cessation of his contractual relationship with the registrant in respect of the domain name. The PAB emphasised that tag holders should not, under any new system detag a domain to prevent its renewal (domains will just lapse naturally).
• The PAB recommended that after a fixed period of 60 days (rather than a variable period) following the expiry of the domain name, the domain name should be returned to the pool. the PAB felt that the issues of a "land rush" were of minor importance and notes that it was to address automaton abuse as a separate work item.

Finally the PAB advises and recommends to the Council of Management that it implement the PAB's endorsed recommendations as detailed, without further reference to the PAB, unless in the CoM's opinion, further policy issues arise.

Action: Council of Management


Reserved Names

The PAB resolved to recommend the following to Nominet:

1. The PAB recognises that the registration of any .uk SLD (whether run by Nominet or a third party) at the third level could lead to confusion, and should continue to be prevented.
2. Registration of the same domain name at the 2nd and 3rd levels is standard registry practice and need not be prevented. Any issues can be addressed through the DRS system.
3. The PAB recommends that the registration at the third level of new SLDs applied for under the new SLD process before the application for that SLD has completed be prevented (if available); making such alterations to its Rules as appropriate.
4. The PAB recommends that Nominet should make any other names currently reserved under Rule 5.9 not covered by the recent discussion on two letter domain names available for registration, excluding “com?; making such alterations to its Rules as appropriate. There should be a special approach to releasing domain names with a staged sunrise period as with two letter domain names.
5. The PAB recommends that Nominet does not have to block registrations for any new TLDs which are announced by ICANN (or any replacement body which controls the creation of new TLDs); making such alterations to its Rules as appropriate.

Revised Terms and Conditions

June 2001 - The PAB approved the Terms and Conditions (pdf) and agreed that the Council of Management should be able to make any necessary changes before implementation.


Rules for .uk

August 2001 - The PAB:

1. Approved the proposed deletion of clause 3.5 of the Rules (pdf)
   
2. Requested that Emily produce a draft set of revised rules for the next PAB meeting.
   

S

.sch uk domains

April 2002 - Juliette Stone tabled a paper that outlined a request from the DfES to add lea.area.sch.uk as a fixed string for England and Wales. Northern Ireland would be dealt with accordingly when they responded to the proposal.

The PAB recorded no objection to the paper (pdf), and requested Nominet to implement the proposal.


Scot.uk

June 2001 - Reject the application by Scotnom for the reasons detailed in their recommendation.


Single year and renewal synchronisation

March 2005 - The PAB, having considered the report of the Registration Periods Working Group (pdf), resolved to recommend that the Board consider the additional implementation of single year registrations and the synchronisation of multiple registrations to a common renewal date through shorter registration periods.  The PAB resolved to recommend that the Board do not implement registation periods longer than two years for the time being, but resolved to consider the issue in approximately two years' time.


SLDs under .uk

January 2005 - In the light of strong consensus amongst stakeholders, the PAB unanimously resolved to recommend that no changes are made with respect to opening up registrations at the second level within ".uk". 

Read full paper on proposal to restructure .uk (pdf)


Status of domain names

December 2002 - The PAB recommended to the CoM that receiving tag holders should be informed of the registrants name and contact details when asked to accept an inbound tag transfer.

T

Tag changes

June 2003 - The PAB recommended that the CoM implement the Tag Changes procedure as detailed in the PAB paper (pdf).


Tag change fee

April 2002 - The PAB recommended that Nominet should be able to charge for Tag changes on a cost-recovery basis in future


Tag Holder agreement

April 2004 - The PAB resolved to reiterate its policy that the Tag Holder's agreement should continue to be enforced.


Two letter domains

June 2001 - The majority of the PAB were in favour of opening-up the Domain Names, but believe that a suitable mechanism for doing so has yet to be found.

Read full paper - Re-introducing two-letter combinations at the third level (pdf).

August 2001- The PAB recommended that:

1. The net amount raised (excluding costs) by any release mechanism, should be at least 20% of the predicted Financial Year End cash position deficit, that deficit being the difference between the targeted cash (as defined by the third of the three principles), and the forecast cash position.
2. The proposed list of mechanisms should be passed to the Executive in order for them to propose to the PAB a suitable and operable mechanism at the next meeting.Read full paper
   

Read full paper - Proposed mechanism for releasing two-letter third level Domains (pdf)


August 2002 - The PAB therefore recommend that while the business risk to Nominet of releasing these domains remained greater than the risk of not releasing them, Nominet should retain the current restrictions on one and two letter domain names.

The PAB also recommended that one character and two letter registrations in .ltd and .plc should be allowed. It also recommended the possibility of allowing one and two letter domain names in any new SLDs.


November 2008 - The PAB recommends that:

• Nominet should make two-letter domain names available for registration; making such alteration to its Rules as appropriate. There should be a special approach to releasing domain names with a staged sunrise period.
  • The first phase should be for holders of registered trademarks recognised and enforceable in UK Courts, which are identical to the two-letter combination applied for. There should be provision for dealing with multiple applications for the same name and a cut off date for trademark registration to be set at some point in the past.
  • The second phase should be for parties with unregistered rights recognised and enforceable in the UK Courts, which are identical to the two-letter combination applied for. This phase could include registered Companies who can establish that they own such rights.
  • There would also be a third phase for releasing any remaining names. The majority of the group favoured a land-rush approach with the majority in favour of a lottery approach
• ccTLDs should not be reserved at the third level. The only exception this is "uk" which should be reserved to avoid confusion, or used by Nominet for an appropriate purpose such as promoting the UK namespace "brand". Currently reserved SLDs should continue to be reserved, regardless whether or not they are also ccTLDs pending further discussion.
• The PAB sees no reason why these principles cannot be applied to the release of a single character domain names at the third level.
• Nominet should ensure that registrars have adequate notice of any changes to enable them sufficient time to update their systems.

Read full paper - two-letter domain names

V

Variable registration periods

September 2007 - The PAB resolved to recommend that a policy of extended registration periods (pdf) up to 10 years be introduced.

W

WHOIS for tags

December 2004 - The PAB resolved to recommend the introduction of a WHOIS for tags (pdf) as proposed by the executive; this is to be introduced once the online facility that allows tag-holders to set and amend their details is in place.

September 2006 - The PAB resolved to recommend to the Board the proposals in section 4 of the paper "WHOIS for Tags - final implementation" (pdf) be implemented, subject to a request that the proposal to publish linked tag information be removed from WHOIS but published in another manner.


WHOIS output

January 2005 - The PAB resolved to recommend that the WHOIS output can be changed to no longer display the IP addresses of nameservers where that information is not held on the register, providing that the absence of IP addresses is satisfactorily explained either in the WHOIS response or at a link therein.  Read full paper - Amendment to WHOIS output (pdf)

May 2005 - The PAB resolved to recommend to the Board that the 'WHOIS' output be changed to display the registrant type and, where appropriate, the associated identifying number, this change is only to be made after the full details of the change have been published and sufficient time given to tag holders to change their systems. Read full paper - Amendment to WHOIS output for registrant types (pdf).

May 2009 - The PAB recommended that the function of the WHOIS and opt-out are operational and therefore outside of the PAB's remit.  


Working group guidelines

December 2003 -The PAB resolved to approve the 'Nominet Working Group Guidelines and Procedures' (pdf) document as PAB policy with the following modifications:

    a) In paragraph 5, the first "should" be changed to "must"

    b) It should be made clear that mailing lists and archives are to be made public

    c) "Nominet meetings" should be changes to "meetings" but is should be noted that Nominet should make a "call for interest" with reasonable notice in respect of such meetings where BOFs (Birds of A Feather) take place.

Read 'Nominet Working Group Guidelines and Procedures' (pdf)