I’ve spoken before about the PAB sometimes being a receptacle for “difficult” issues – the political hot potatoes and revolving doors of Nominet’s policy process; e-crime, phishing, online fraud, child protection online, etc. – the questions to which there are no easy answers. I sometimes feel that Nominet’s open-ended remit causes more than its fair share of these issues to pile up at the door.
When I work with Pilotlight as part of a consultancy group for UK charities, one of the first and most challenging tasks we undertake with an organization is the re-evaluation of its mission and vision. Very often, these may have been written when the charity first was founded and may not have changed since! As a consultant, I encourage organizations to re-evaluate these on an annual basis to reflect the realities of the evolving charity, its aims and changing trends in donor activity and funding allocation. We just completed the first step of this process with a charity the week before last, and it got me thinking….
Does Nominet’s vision and mission provide clear insight into its objectives and how it plans to achieve them?
Its vision is a “world where the Internet is a trusted space, which everyone can be a part of and has a positive impact…” while its mission is “to make a positive difference to UK Internet users and to shape the development of the Internet”. That seems quite open-ended and contrasts with some of the other ccTLD registries. For example, DENIC identifies themselves as “the central registry for all domains under the Top Level Domain .de” and defines its responsibility as “the operation and the technical reliability of an important resource of the German Internet. As one Member said to me earlier this month:
“With other registries, you know where you are – they manage the TLD, that’s it. With Nominet, you never know quite where it ends…”
By positioning itself at the “heart” of the Internet in the UK, Nominet is identifiable by many as the go-to agency for all things “e-“. Judging by parts of the Digital Britain report, the recent Nominet Governance Review, the BERR representative’s address at last year’s Nominet Registrar Day and the constant presence of broad-spectrum issues on for example, the PAB’s agenda, this certainly seems to be the case for Government and for Enterprise bodies. However, the recent study I commented upon a few weeks ago seems to indicate that for everyone else, for wider stakeholders outside Government and for the average registrant – their registrar is at the “heart” of their experience of online.
As I’ve written before, my view is that Nominet does substantial work with, and uses a lot of resources in, engaging with global entities such as IGF, ICANN and IANA. This work is vital and while I believe that broad-spectrum topics such as phishing and e-crime should continue to be addressed by Nominet, and cooperation with international policy drivers must continue, I believe that focus should also be placed on issues relating to Nominet’s CORE BUSINESS – i.e. continuing to function as a stable upstream provider for its Members. I think a bit more clarity and purpose in its mission and vision could help here – perhaps it would be valuable to include boundaries to its remit or detail in its overriding objectives?
Ultimately, I think a vision and mission should explain WHAT the organization’s goal is, and HOW they’re going to achieve it. Looking at Nominet’s “about us” section, I feel that some additional detail might be helpful in moving forward. I know many people are skeptical about “visions and mission” but I think words can be pretty powerful and in my experience of working with NFP organizations, I have seen relatively small changes to their mission statement reap wide rewards in terms of clarity, scope and remit.
I believe that by doing so, Nominet could effectively ensure that on top of its responsibilities as a registry, it is not lumbered with the dubious accolade of People’s Choice for policing the web. By setting limits to its objectives, providing clarity in how it plans to reach them and evaluating/updating them regularly, Nominet could, in my opinion, strenthen its position as a distinct, respected and impartial voice in shaping the future of .uk. As Einstein once said, “once we accept our limits, we go beyond them”.
With the dawn of Digital Britain, I think it’s important that Nominet define its role more clearly, communicate its responsibilities more openly and provide guidelines as to its role in the UK’s online! future What do you think? What do you think Nominet’s role in Digital Britain should be? What should Nominet NOT do? Should they limit themselves to being “just” a registry? Or embrace the wider responsibilities of managing a key piece of UK digital infrastructure? As ever, would be delighted to hear from you!
Best wishes,
Nora
