There were around 750 responses, even if one includes the e-mails. Nearly 20% of were from those in the registration supply chain who collectively issue 70% of names under the current system. A further 70% were from those with .uk names issued under the current, unvalidated, system. Under 10% were from large organisations. There was no split as to how many were from organisations based outside the UK.
Hardly any of the responses were from customers without a domain name of their own, or from business or consumer groups who might want to know whether suppliers using .uk website were governed by UK.
The motto of this column is "The silent majority gets what it deserves, ignored". I admire the tolerance of those who run Nominet. They run a remarkably cost-effective and efficient operation. But unless and until the on-line equivalent of UKIP invades their hallowed walls, and thsoe of ICANN, by getting its members to JOIN and acquire voting rights (as I first advised nearly four years ago), we face the very real risk that the ITU will acquire a mandate to sort out the mess that is being perpetuated by those who make money by creating and selling domain names under the current system, either as a business in its own right or in support of an Internet Service or Trade Mark operation.
This morning I received a linked in message via a supporter of the Cloud Industry Forum position on an ICANN consultation exercise who I have known for rather more decades than I care to remember. It further illustrates the problems that result from allowing ICANN to police itself without serious customer input. I reproduce it below.
Subject: Geekspace invaded by commercial sector
From
the Cloud Industry Forum, something that makes regulation/governmental
intervention for the Internet more likely:
"IMPORTANT: HAVE YOUR SAY ON .cloud
Don't let dotCLOUD become a Closed Registry!
We are writing to bring to your attention an issue which we believe the market
at large should be concerned about. You may not be aware that the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is in the process of
expanding the top-level domain (TLD)* name space by adding over a thousand new
TLDs. Most of the new TLD applications are for:
• Generic terms to be operated as "open" registries that will allow anyone to
own second-level domains (e.g., Omega.Watch) or
• Brand names to be operated as "closed" registries that will only allow the
TLD operator to own second-level domains (e.g. Ka.Ford).
However, some large companies are applying for generic categories in the
industries in which they compete and intend to operate them as closed
registries. Examples include .cloud, .book, .news, .blog and .insurance. If
these applications are granted, only the successful applicants will be able to
register any second level domain names in those TLDs (e.g. www. "yourcompanyname"
.cloud), leaving them free to exclude competitors and exploit the new TLD for
their sole benefit. The Cloud Industry Forum believe that this situation could
have harmful consequences for market education and competition and restricts
the treasured openness of the internet and should be resisted.
Of particular and obvious concern is the risk that .CLOUD becomes a closed
registry owned by one company. As we know the wider market is often confused
enough about the term Cloud and we believe the limitation of the TLD to refer
to one commercial organisation is detrimental to the wider market in the longer
term. We also work on the principle that generic phrases are just that, they
are not trademarks or brands and should not be reinforced as being the property
of one company through a closed registry process.
CIF are keen to raise people's awareness of this issue through PR and through
the process of raising a Community Objection on behalf of our members in
keeping with ICANN review and dispute processes. Please follow this link for
our recent press release on the subject.
Register your own objection to a Closed Registry for .cloud by 7th March 2013!
If you agree with our concern about a closed Registry for .cloud, it is
important to have your voice heard by submitting a public comment to ICANN.
Every comment will help us raise the seriousness of the concern around the
future of .cloud with ICANN so please do follow this link and have your say
today.
Many thanks for reading this email. We hope it is informative and we hope you
will want to have your say on this important subject whilst there is still time
to influence the outcome.
With Kind regards
The Cloud Industry Forum
www.cloudindustryforum.org
Subscribe to blog feed
Hear hear!:)
Mr. Virgo,
Forgive my being direct but you seem rather want for staking out positions based upon rather grand assumptions.
"I was very annoyed when a lawyer, apparently retained by a particular interest group, tried to hi-jack the meeting for government, public sector and consumer groups. In consequence I did my best to drum up responses but you lot ignored the call, or thought some-one else would ...."
Given the link in your post above, it appears that I am the attorney you reference. I am quite surprised at your description given my comment (and your reply) to the linked post.
You seem concerned that people become informed and then "vote" but then object when someone does just those things. I did not hi-jack any of the 4 sessions I attended. I was not representing anyone let alone an interest group. I attended each of the sessions and participated by asking questions and raising concerns with virtually every aspect of the proposal.
I would wager that as a result of comments by me and others many in attendance left with a better understanding of the real issues faced (by both public and private sector) instead of relying on what appeared to me to be more of a sales pitch by Nominet.
Interestingly, among the comments I (and many others) repeatedly made were those expressing concern over the lack of publicity and the apparent refusal to even reach out directly to .co.uk registrants.
The above said, I do very much agree with your apparent call to allow registrants more of a voice in the operations of Nominet.
Paul Keating
Paul@law.es
Your contributions did indeed cause me to wonder why so few people use DNSSEC. When I organised the Conservative Technology Forum discussions on their response I was therefore unsurprised to find a lack of consensus on most of the technical details, including most of those raised by yourself. There was, however, very clear consensus on the issues of interest to consumers. That response is available on-line (including my typos in submitting it) at http://www.conservative-technology.org/#!publications--meeting-reports/c1ziz