Tag Archives: domain names

Putting UK Internet users at the heart of .uk policy

Posted on January 11, 2010 | Comments Off

For those of you that have never heard of Nominet’s Policy Advisory Body (PAB), and for those that have heard of the PAB, but didn’t know it could involve you, this post is for you!

For the past few months, the PAB (of which I am an elected member) has been conducting a self-evaluation and this week, we published our conclusions. We have all agreed that we need to optimize a few things about the way we work and, more than that, we need to increase the participation of a broader range of people with an interest in .uk matters.  I’d love to hear your thoughts on all this, so have a read of our plans and let me know what you think.

Why the PAB needs to change…

The Internet is constantly throwing out issues and new problems as it evolves, and Nominet – as one of the largest registries in the world – needs to constantly develop a range of policies to deal with such issues.  In order to assist this policy development, in 1999 the Policy Advisory Body – made up of a range of member representatives and other stakeholders – was created to discuss topical issues and give recommendations to Nominet’s board.

What worked well in the early days of the UK’s internet, has however been struggling to cope with the impact of the massive growth of .uk and the associated issues this raises. The issues that are thrown up these days affect more people, need faster solutions, and would benefit from greater expertise than was originally envisaged. Our small group of PAB members has been trying to adequately discuss these often specialist topics by pulling in views and expertise from outside to complement the competencies around the table.  However, a lack of visibility, a cumbersome stakeholder input mechanism and a fixed format made it difficult to find the best and most informed solutions. At the end of last year, we finalized some exciting new ways to work to enable more voices and constituencies to be heard.

Extending our reach

Instead of the closed group of up to 18 meeting in person every few months, we have decided to dramatically extend the process and put you – the Internet user – at the heart of Nominet’s policy process.

The policy process will become issue-led and stakeholder focussed open to all to participate in through open forum meetings and issues based discussion groups.  To facilitate such an open process and ensure it works we need new structures to support it.  One of these new structures is  a Standing Committee that helps draw together those most interested in a particular issue. The Standing Committee will, crucially, support, rather than run, a series of channels for gathering information, holding discussions on that information in different formats, and developing ideas and solutions.

Nominet Policy Advisory Process

The stakeholder process will follow six clear steps, the first of which is identifying and approaching relevant people that are likely to have an  interest in, or relevant to, the topic under discussion.

The issue itself will then be clearly identified, groups (as relevant) set up, public discussions and consultations held, and then the results analyzed before being passed onto the Board for its consideration and review.

What does this mean for you?

It means that if you have an interest in Nominet issues, domain issues, or related Internet issues, you will be able to become a part of the group itself that decides the best way forward.

The new Standing Committee, will act as a guide, assisting in communication, providing consistency and ensuring that the process isn’t abused. And a support team from Nominet will help different groups with logistics and materials so their work can progress effectively.

This approach will, we hope, enable Nominet to come up with better, more broadly considered, effective solutions and to call on a breadth of experience that any committee of 18 could never have. Most importantly, we want to remove barriers to participation and give you a central stake in policy development of the .uk name space addressing issues that affect us all. The PAB’s original function, I believe, was to add value to Nominet’s policy process – i.e. to reach beyond consultations, mailing lists and Nominet outreach events and to consider broad policy issues from the viewpoint of all member sectors – especially those not traditionally reached by the core outreach initiatives.  The proposed changes will allow us to return to the original intent of the PAB by making it easier for you to be involved, in issues that interest you, in a format that works for you, in a framework that supports and enables you, the .uk stakeholder, to help shape the future of .uk

If you are interested in the formal report from the PAB on this issue, please view the report at: http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/39402_DraftPABmeetingreport_november2009.pdf

Get involved

If you have questions, or want to know more, just add a comment to this post or contact me directly – as ever, would be delighted to hear from you!

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Together We Can Shape The Future Of .uk

Posted on December 4, 2009 | Comments Off

I’ve been in touch with many Nominet Members since we launched our recent consultation on the future of .uk.  Lots of you have had questions, or asked my opinions on the topics involved, so I thought I’d update the blog! I would urge any Nominet Members reading this to participate in Nominet’s consultation – HERE.  Please give feedback on the statement of commitments and share your views in the comments section.  Your feedback here will shape the EGM resolutions, so your input really counts in determining the direction Nominet will take!

For those who haven’t read the consultation; it centres on a statement of commitments in four key areas that need our attention – governance, pricing, membership and public purpose.  I’ve included my opinion on each below

1. Public Purpose

Public purpose has always been at the heart of Nominet but we now need to embrace it fully and enshrine it in our constitution, to demonstrate our commitment to representing the interests of the wider stakeholder community, alongside our Members.  We know the vast majority of our Members already embrace this idea but part of satisfying government’s requirements in terms of best practice is to give this element explicit recognition in our constitution.  In essence, it means that while Nominet will continue to support our thriving domain name industry by being a first class supplier to registrars and a guardian of .uk for all .uk registrants, we must do MORE to engage formally with all stakeholders; in particular with institutions like government, police, etc.

Public purpose does include an ongoing relationship with the Nominet Trust as part of our commitment to reinvesting surplus funds back into the online space through helping organizations use the Internet in an innovative way to make a difference to people, primarily in the areas of education, online safety and inclusion.  However, public purpose is MUCH MORE than this.

Times have changed since Nominet’s inception, and a rise in Internet penetration, online usage and digital marketing means that domain names are now at the core of almost everything we do online.  This offers great opportunity for our Members in terms of business, entrepreneurship, digital advertising and competition, but it also opens up new opportunities for crime and scope for an exacerbation of the digital divide, which alongside the mainstay of our business, need to be addressed by Nominet in a way that allows stakeholders access and avenues for involvement.  Nominet endeavours to do this already with the PAB and its range of processes and policies, but enshrining our commitment to wider stakeholder involvement must be part of Nominet’s ongoing work to ensure our Members remain  free to champion diverse business models and our ability to continue to take a balanced approach to our support of existing and emerging technologies.

2. Governance

Global internet governance is a key issue in today’s digital landscape; a lot of attention is being paid to regulation models, looking at how other countries manage their TLDs and how agencies work internationally to meet common goals.  Nominet is already involved in several international initiatives in this area, including the IGF, but we now have a part to play in this at home as well.  Just as the international community is starting to look at governance issues, so are national attentions now being paid to how .uk, and Nominet itself, are run.  You might think this has nothing to do with you, but Nominet’s governance shortcomings were exposed last year in press and Boardroom disagreements and the Government has legitimate concerns until the EGM, when the Membership’s approval of the resolutions would address its concerns.

We have not modernized our governance structure since Nominet’s inception, despite massive changes in the constitution of our space and our Membership, the emergence of many more business models than could ever have been imagined at Nominet’s outset and the Internet having grown to be a part of our critical national infrastructure.  More attention than ever is being paid to the space in which we operate; and in turn, to how Nominet itself operates.  It’s time for us to come up to speed with corporate governance practice in the UK; the Board structure needs to adapt to ensure balance moving forward, elements of best corporate practice need to be adopted to make our structures and systems of governance more transparent and accountable to the Members.  Supporting Nominet in its efforts to optimize its governance will reap benefits for Members – the Board can enlarge to fill out skill gaps, appointed directors can be brought in for specialized expertise, Member appointed directors would remain, roles would be split to provide more transparency and accountability, more of the management team would be able to join the Board and a balanced and committed Nominet Board could be ensured for the future to continue supplying, sustaining and supporting the .uk space as our Membership, our organization and our space continues to evolve.

3. Pricing

As Jonathan Robinson said in the consultation video, for every person that would like the price of .uk to be increased, you can find one who is vehemently opposed.  The Board has no current plans to change the pricing.  However, we need the ability to be able to do so.  The Garratt review emphasized how important this is – Nominet as the custodian of .uk needs to have the ability to alter the price of .uk, should the commercial need arise.  As already mentioned, so much has changed since Nominet was created – we are one of the largest registries in the world!  Who knows what lies around the corner?  We can prepare ourselves and our registry for the future by enabling the Board to adjust pricing.  If Nominet Members support this in principle, Nominet’s Board undertakes that it will not do so without Membership engagement and will ensure that no group is favoured over others.  This is a critical element in determining Nominet’s ability to meet future challenges – only with the ability to be flexible and to adapt to potentially rapidly changing market conditions, can we, as .uk stakeholders, be assured of our ability to continue managing .uk for all UK Internet users.

4. Membership

Nominet’s Membership has grown considerably since it was created, and we now have close to 3000 Members.  However, engagement by these Members in Nominet consultations, elections, outreach etc. has always been low.  Most Members regard Nominet as a supplier and as long as they experience no supply problems, feel no need to “get involved”.  It is a testament to their success as domain name businesses that they often may not have the time to engage with Nominet on strategic issues but Nominet needs those Members’ support and input on any number of issues.  This consultation and the upcoming EGM, in particular, are critical to Nominet’s and .uk’s continued success.   Nominet needs to find a way to effectively enfranchise our Membership.  Voting thresholds are so high, that every vote counts in this EGM!

As a Nominet Member, please engage -just this once.  Check out the consultation here and give your feedback; it won’t take long!

We need your input to be able to get the EGM resolutions right and then in turn, we need your support to pass the resolutions in order to satisfy Government, reduce the risk of intervention and regulation, build an organization fit for the future and adapt our organization so it is ready and able to meet the challenges of a digital future together with our Membership

If you would like more information on any of these statements of commitment, or would like to discuss any element of the consultation in more detail, please get in touch with me.  You can reach me on Twitter, LinkedIn, at Sedo, at Nominet or by email.  As always, I’d be delighted to hear from you.

Best wishes,

Nora Nanayakkara

Comments Off

Posted in .uk, domain names, Nominet

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

.IE and .ORG stats out today

Posted on October 7, 2009 | Comments Off

Hello there,

Thought I’d recommence blogging here today with a roundup of some newly released stats from the .ie registry and the .org registry.

Key numbers include:

  • Registrations for .ORG grew 11%, up to 7.69 million total registrations in the first half of 2009, compared to a year ago
  • This growth rate outpaces other well known Top Level Domains (TLDs) such as .com and .net
  • The UK is number two in .ORG’s top ten markets
  • A total of 9,398 .IE domains were registered in Q3, up 15% on the same period last year
  • In the first nine months of the year, new registrations of .IE at 28,522 are up by over 7% compared to the first nine months of 2008
  • The growth in .IE registrations is from sole traders or limited companies, states the IEDR report, who account for, the majority (83%) of registrations in Q3

I’ll be back on October 14th – let me know if there are news/topics/issues you’d like me to discuss!

Best wishes,

Nora

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Governance Review

Posted on June 30, 2009 | Comments Off

Good morning,

Yesterday, I posted a bit “on-list” about my views on the results of the Nominet governance review so thought I’d include them here too.  I’ll update later with more – am working on some PAB stuff this morning and then have a few meetings; hope to be back online by early evening.
For me, the published results of Prof. Garratt’s Nominet governance review, while not surprising, have given us a valuable opportunity to hone in on some of the fundamental issues, (often bitter sources of contention!) which have seen Nominet and its Membership put a very difficult year behind it.  I believe that the review presents us with the potential to move forward with a new era of Nominet and .uk.  I think that the governance review is a really exciting opportunity for Nominet’s Membership to get involved in shaping the future of .uk and its registry, which for most Members, I’m sure, is something that we are committed to doing in a positive and constructive way.  Incidentally, for any Members reading this who were unable to attend a consultation event, or who have not yet completed the online questionnaire on Nominet’s homepage – I would really urge you to do so and “have your say”!

As to whether I support the proposed changes in the Garratt review -
The majority of them, yes.  And those that do not immediately fill me personally with delight, would be subjects for further discussion and analysis, with the Membership and if elected, with my Board colleagues.  Whether a NED agrees or disagrees with policy proposals, I feel it is imperative that the issue is broached and managed in a constructive way and the Director is able to put aside personal feelings to find a path that best fits the organization.  I feel that change is inevitable – the .uk landscape, the international domain name market, Nominet and its Membership have all changed dramatically since the organization’s inception.  Some Members are struggling with the proposed changes, and maybe some even with the concept of change itself at Nominet, while I get the impression that others are rearing to embrace the development or extension of Nominet’s remit.  Finding a balance in progress would be for me, as a candidate in this election, a priority and as a Non Exec, I would strive to manage that progress in a constructive way – channelling broad-spectrum Membership feedback to the Executive, providing specialist insight where required and working with the Board to implement viable solutions, with the overriding goal of the preservation of the self-regulating status of the space.

As ever, if you’d like to discuss further/have any questions, please do give me a call or drop me a line!

Best wishes and have a good Tuesday!

Nora

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

When We Accept Our Limits….

Posted on June 29, 2009 | Comments Off

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

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Price ‘Em High, Price ‘Em Low

Posted on June 24, 2009 | Comments Off

Good morning!

I’m on holidays at the moment in East Cork, where it is freakishly warm!  So apologies for the lack of update, but I have to say that broadband access is a bit hard to come by here!  So, I’ve been trying to keep up to date with goings-ons on “list” and thought, rather than laboriously typing responses on the blackberry, I’d type up some stuff here and reply “on-list” later.  Hopefully, the thoughts below will offer a “different” viewpoint and maybe provide a basis for further discussion – let me know what you think!

In regards to pricing – here are my thoughts, as a candidate for the non executive director election at Nominet.

1.  What is the goal of a price change?

From reading the list, I am struggling to decipher the objective of a price change?  Is it to decrease Nominet surplus?  Is it to stem the domain secondary market success?  Is it to make domains more/less available to wider members?  If I were elected, I would first seek to work with the Executive Board to clarify the objective of a price change and then to conduct analysis, centring on:

1.  The impact of a price change on .uk renewal rates

2.  The impact of a price change on Nominet revenue

3.  The impact of a price change on the key stakeholder groups (for the sake of argument, those used in the outreach and consultation rounds for Prof. Garratt’s review – primary market, secondary market, corporate members (non-registrar/domain investor), private members and NFPs (?).  Also, I would propose examining the effects of price changes in domain names on advertising, search engines and IP management companies and webhosting businesses.

As most of you have contacted me asking about my feelings on a price hike, here are my initial feelings:

Impact of a price hike on the Primary Market

A price hike, or a fluctuating pricing model, would render .uk internationally uncompetitive

It wold negatively impact the .uk brand

It would increase the barrier to entry for SoHo’s and SMEs who are seeking to go online

It would ultimately make “online” less accessible

Registrars will concentrate their marketing efforts on more viable TLDs (and those where they get marketing support from registries, but that’s another story)

And new registrations plus renewals of .uk will fall, thus

Ensuring that Nominet’s revenues decrease and

Ensure that any further development of Nominet’s remit would be severely stunted

 Impact of a price hike on the secondary market

In my opinion, a price hike would result in .uk domains increasingly consolidated into portfolios of large pure-play domain investors, as these would be the only ones with the cashflow and revenue buffers to withstand fluctuations in registration and renewal prices, as they have always run their domain investing as a traditional business (in contrast to some smaller investors, or those that do it “part time”). 

Domains will increasingly be owned by international domain investors, whose risk is diversified by their involvement with other TLDs.  This, IMHO, would take business and revenue out of the UK and ultimately stunt national online entrepreneurship.

Domain prices on the secondary market would rise and

Sales volume would fall and

Fluidity in the marketpalce would be negatively impacted by a price hike .

Ultimately, the secondary market would continue to thrive but would do so at an increasingly inaccessible level for the average consumer.  It would be a sellers’ market, with prospective buyers suffering low supply and high prices with negotiations taking longer and transfers becoming more problematic.

The convergence of primary and secondary domain markets is already well underway; as someone on list (Alex?) has already pointed out, most of Nominet’s top twenty members have some form of secondary market interests already and this is on the increase – both internationally and at home.

To conclude, if a price change is the proposed solution to the perceived “problem” of domain investing, I feel it is overly simplistic and likely to be futile, if not counterproductive.  If we are to truly seek to make domains more accessible to all .uk stakeholders, I would rather support the following measures:

1.  Keep prices as they are (depending on analysis)

2.  Encourage fluidity by working on ease of domain transfers (e.g. Auth codes)

3.  Support registrars’ efforts to add value to their product offering

However, as stated, this is simply one perspective – and one that I feel would be of value at Board level, when considered as one proposal among others, which would enable the Executive to benefit from a rounded and balanced perspective.  Putting forward a variety of proposals, possible solutions and viable alternatives, would give the Board and its membership a range of options to choose from, as they seek to build a strong, competitive and realistic strategy for the future of .uk

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Meeting the key responsibilities of a Nominet Non Executive Director

Posted on June 20, 2009 | Comments Off

Hello,

Thought I’d blog today about the key responsibilities of the NED role, as many of you are asking me about my stance on particular issues etc.

I have personal views on many of the issues you’ve asked me about, such as multi-year registrations, the DRS, marketing support for registrars, WHOIS privacy, last year’s Nominet elections, credit control issues, etc.  The registrars that are part of the UI Group and the registrars I work with at Sedo most definitely have individual opinions on specific policies.  The domain investors that I work with as part of my work with Sedo and the PAB also hold individual and collective opinions in regards to specific Nominet policies.  The one thing I can be sure about is that while some of those views will overlap, many of the opinions will be as divergent as Nominet’s own Membership.

The role of NED requires that candidates put aside personal viewpoints and regard issues strategically – considering them from the point of view of the multi-stakeholder community.  So, for example, while I feel that WHOIS privacy is a very important part of data protection safeguarding for private individuals, there are other considerations – registrars lose out on vital revenue generation they could otherwise generate by providing bespoke WHOIS privacy services, the system is open to manipulation as trading entities pose as private individuals, consumers may be denied access to information they need to follow up on trade transactions, IP lawyers and brands waste resources on researching the correct owner details of infringing domains whose ownership is screened, potential domain buyers find it difficult to contact the owner directly, domain owners must be protected from data theft/mining; there are legal, governance and political considerations etc. etc.; and that is just one example.

The Board, including NEDs, must be independent and objective in considering policy and strategic issues – something I will do my utmost to uphold should you elect me.  It is important that we all remember that it is not the remit of non-exec directors to micromanage Nominet’s operations and it is definitely not part of the job to pursue personal views or affiliations.

If elected, I will work to represent all Members’ feedback on issues such as those mentioned above and the multitude of other key topics that are part of all of our daily interaction with Nominet.  I will, however, if elected, endeavour to especially provide feedback from the viewpoint of registrars, domainers or domain investors, international Members, New Media and the advertising industry.  My overriding objective will be to regard issues strategically, with the ultimate goal of providing more rounded Membership feedback,  as the recent governance review has pointed out is necessary, so that the .uk namespace can continue to benefit from effective self-regulation and a strong and stable .uk infrastructure.

I’ve included the key considerations of the job spec below from Nominet’s website with a description of how I feel my application meets them.  Do you disagree?  Would you like to see statements from me/other candidates about specific issues?as always, would be delighted to hear from you by email, phone or leave a comment here.

1.  Contribution to Nominet strategy

As a Non-executive director, my MBA and experience in developing and implementing a highly successful strategy for Sedo in the UK would allow me to fill this responsibility very effectively.  My experience with other TLDs (including ccTLDs), ICANN and other industry bodies gives me great insight into the external environment, which affects Nominet.  As part of my role with Sedo and my volunteer role with Pilotlight, I am responsible with coming up with creative but effective strategic solutions to barriers to development and to “think outside the box”, or outside typically corporate limits.

2. Oversight

My background in operations and strategy development, as well as my formal MBA training enables me to work with key performance indicators in evaluating executive performance.  If elected, I will fulfill this part of my role by working with the performance evaluation structure selected to support Nominet’s executive management in achieving the company’s vision and strategic objectives.

3. Networking

I have a large and varied network of contacts in the domain space – both in the UK and abroad.  I speak fluent German as well as basic Spanish, Italian and French, which proves useful when networking at international events like ICANN and trade shows.  I really enjoy meeting stakeholders as part of my role as Nominet PAB member and have attended many registrar lunches, member events and AGMs both in a private capacity and as PAB member, in order to connect with stakeholders of all backgrounds, to help me in providing rounded and well informed feedback to Nominet.

4. Audit

Part of the non-exec directors’ role is to ensure that the company’s accounts are a true and fair reflection of its actions and financial performance, that appropriate internal controls are put into place and are monitored satisfactorily. I am well equipped to carry out this duty – financial modelling was part of my MBA and I completed a brush-up course in strategic financial modelling in January, through Helmsley Fraser.  These skills are used in my work at Sedo and in my not-for-profit work with Pilotlight – so I have experience of both corporate and NFP financial reporting.

5. Declaration of interests

Nominet maintains a register of directors’ interests, which is reviewed by the company’s auditors annually.  As stated, I am of course, willing to declare all interests, not only in the register, but also on an ongoing basis at Board meetings, when and if, a potential conflict arises, as I do in my work with Nominet’s PAB.

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Registrars – The Unsung Heroes of .uk?

Posted on June 18, 2009 | Comments Off

Reading through Nominet’s annual reports, I am struck by the role that registrars play in the success of .uk.  Let’s take a look at some of the key value-adds that registrars provide for the .uk space.

1.  Registrars operate at the coalface of the domain industry.  They interact daily with endusers and enable them to acquire free-to-register domains for a lower price than if they registered directly with Nominet.

2.  Registrars drive and then deal with the practicalities of a 71.3% domain renewal rate

3.  Registrars contributed a massive portion of Nominet’s £18.2 million income.  Nominet’s 2008 report does not give any details of the percentage generated by the registrar members, nor any breakdown of how the revenue correlates to the membership and its representation at Nominet.

4.  Nominet registrars’ support is vital if ENUM is to be a success.  ENUM was officially launched over 6 months ago.

5.  Registrars in the UK have been subject to a round of consolidations, restructuring and downsizing, but the UK’s registrars, webhosts and IT services industry are massive employers in the UK.

6.  Registrars and webhosts help the “wider stakeholder community” to find a voice on the web – many of them specialize in low cost registrations, or in packages that include hosting/websites/SEO.  Without these important services, thousands of SoHos, SMEs, and sole traders would be without an online presence.

7.  Registrars are the first point of contact for law enforcement agencies when illegal activity is spotted online – their cooperation in this regard is invaluable in ensuring the security and safety of the .uk namespace

8.  Registrars’ marketing and PR teams play a key role in the popularity of the .uk extension.  Their creativity, publicity and effective online marketing campaigns have been one of the most forceful drivers of .uk’s continued growth.

9.  Registrars keep .uk moving – they handle nameserver changes, ownership changes, deletions, renewals, WHOIS updates, email forwarding services, etc. for the vast majority of .uk users who do not have a direct relationship with the registry

10.  Registrars contributed the vast majority of the revenue that made the £5 million donation to the Nominet Foundation possible.

And yet it could be argued that….

UK registrars gain no direct or fiscal benefit from best practice challenges, employer awards or Nominet trust donations.  They don’t see much of the 17p in every £1 spent online.  Even as “key channel to market for .uk”, their margin and operating profit is not positively impacted by the work that Nominet does with UK IGF, IANA, ccNSO, ICANN and working groups at international debates.

Much is being done to develop the interaction between Nominet and registrars – the registry held their first .uk registrar conference this year, which was very successful and unveiled new backoffice tools that allow registrars to include their brand and CI on renewal notifications.  However, as registrars struggle with consolidation, squeezing margins and a slowdown in primary registrations, how can Nominet, limited as it is by its current constitution, work out a way to reward its main revenue generators in some way and support their key income providers through meaningful financial measures?

How do you feel about the role of registrars in the success of .uk?  Have you ideas or proposals on how registries can share reward with registrars?  As always, would love to hear your feedback…

Best wishes,

Nora

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Adding Value as a Non Executive Director at Nominet

Posted on June 16, 2009 | Comments Off

The role of Nominet director, whether executive or non-executive, is to bring broad perspective to business and company matters.  Non executives are typically selected for their personal qualities, range of experience, exposure to different facets of the core business and often for their relevant specialist knowledge and contacts with relevant stakeholders.

As a Nominet non-executive director, I would fufill all of these requirements –  my network of contacts in the .uk community and in the international domain space is very large and I have very positive relationships with hundreds of key stakeholders from UK-based online sole traders to MNCs, from domain investors to online marketers.  My work in PR and marketing has allowed me to develop excellent communication and outreach skills, which would prove invaluable in achieving stakeholder buy-in for Nominet, so that they may develop out the changes needed to prove long term sustainability.

Non-executive directors at Nominet should be independent and objective in Board discussions, and provide supportive oversight of Nominet’s executive management.  My time on the PAB has demonstrated my ability to ensure impartiality and objectivity in strategic discussions and in providing appropriate advice and feedback on key issues.  I firmly agree that it is not the responsibility of PAB members, nor of non-exec directors to try to micromanage Nominet’s operations.  I am strongly of the opinion, especially in light of recent issues, that it is imperative that we remain focused on high level and strategic objectives, with the goal of implementing the changes suggested in the recent governance review, so that the .uk namespace can continue to benefit from effective self-regulation and a strong and stable .uk infrastructure.

As a candidate for the Non-Executive Director position, I bring fresh perspective and will work to represent the wide and complex needs of Nominet’s divergent Membership through ongoing outreach and feasible and constructive input.

I share a desire for ongoing policy adjustment and improvement with many other Nominet members and believe that the way to achieve such development is through greater participation and positive cooperation with the Board and with the active progression of policies, which meet the diverse needs of the Membership through cohesive involvement, documented research, professional representation and informed discussions.

I support the current Nominet leadership and hope to work together with them in a constructive and positive way in the role of Non Executive Director to develop a balanced and viable approach to stakeholder involvement, increased support and assistance for the registrar community, continued education and awareness generation of the .uk namespace to the wider business and individual user communities and the continued championing of the .uk as a brand and as a high quality, trustworthy and valuable TLD.

Comments Off

Posted in Nominet, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Future of Nominet’s PAB

Posted on June 15, 2009 | 1 Comment

As part of my role as an elected member of Nominet’s Policy Advisory Body (PAB), I recently wrote a paper for the PAB’s consideration, entitled “The Future of the PAB”.

We’ll be taking the paper forward for discussion at the July meeting, and I’d really like to hear your thoughts.  My view is that the PAB has a huge amount to offer, with a wealth of combined knowledge and expertise, but that its current format does not enable it to realize its full potential in adding real value to Nominet’s policy process. Alternative formats such as issues-driven working groups, expertise pools and debates featuring stakeholder representatives, with more Member outreach, would in my opinion, be of benefit in developing out the role of the PAB to embrace wider stakeholder participation and more rounded input for the policy recommendations we make to the Board.

Do you know what the PAB is?  What’s your experience or opinion of the PAB’s work?  Let me know what you think – I’d love to hear from you!.

The Future of the PAB (Nora Nanayakkara)

From the Governance Review Paper:

Nominet does make provision for some participation by stakeholders in its affairs via the Policy Advisory Body. However, this body is not referred to in the constitution, and at least in theory it could be ignored by the Board. It would be logical for the body (such as the PAB) representing members in the governance to have a more substantial role, so that it can play a greater part in the overall governance. The composition of the Policy Advisory Body is itself dominated by members (ten out of eighteen). Furthermore, the rules governing the PAB appear to be subject to the approval of the Board (which is dominated by members of Nominet). These arrangements are not conducive to allowing other voices and constituencies to be heard.

The recent published governance review has highlighted several shortfalls within the Nominet structure that result in the perceived inadequate representation of the divergent Nominet stakeholder voices.  One among these is the PAB.  Having read the report, spoken with a variety of stakeholders and analysed previously published Nominet papers (Governance Review 2006, Composition of the PAB paper) I feel now is a good time to explore the future of the PAB.

I believe the current structure, scope and composition of the PAB represents several key issues:

  1. Nominet’s membership appears to have “electorate fatigue” with the PAB, which affects both its engagement with the PAB and the future quality and quantity of members standing for election
  2. This in turn theoretically facilitates people standing for election on the basis of self-interest or voicing own opinions rather than that of the wider community for the long term good of Nominet, which can be reflected in a lack of diversity of appropriate experience.
  3. PAB discussions can focus on very specialist topics, rather than on broad-interest, strategic policies.  These often veer toward rather pedantic and operational considerations and away from the vision and mission of the PAB.
  4. The PAB in its current format is viewed by some as “irrelevant”, “lacking teeth”, while its role is described as “navel gazing” with some members reporting a lack of “payback” for PAB involvement (2009 Nominet governance review) – this again reflected in election statistics.  Its lack of visibility and the lack of stakeholder understanding of the PAB’s role and purpose is underscored by a study undertaken at Internet World, which found that out of 250 interviewees, just under 8% had heard of the Nominet PAB.
  5. The PAB’s scope is constantly in flux and its remit is too fluid.  This lack of structure and the ambiguity of the PAB’s stated purpose could cause the PAB to become a dumping ground for undesirable issues, which can be discussed in a “harmless” environment for appearance’s sake.
  6. The PAB currently fails to represent several key stakeholder groups (e.g. advertising, charity, registrars (small, medium and large), “silver surfers”, online retail, social networking, etc. )
  7. The PAB does not engage in meaningful, formalized stakeholder research/surveying  -this was a conscious decision made some time ago, I believe.

I would therefore like to ask the PAB to consider the notion that the PAB in its current format and composition no longer adequately meet the needs of the organization and its membership.  I ask the PAB to critically evaluate if we are completely representational of the current .uk namespace and in particular, of its commercial uses (outside of primary and secondary market).

The PAB’s original function, I believe, was to add value to Nominet’s policy process – i.e. to reach beyond consultations, Nom-steer and Nominet outreach events and to consider broad policy issues from the viewpoint of all member sectors – especially those not traditionally reached by the core outreach initiatives.  It is my belief that we are now in a situation where we need to think radically and to challenge ourselves to consider how we are to achieve that value for Nominet and its membership going forward.

I propose that we grab the opportunity posed by the governance review to re-evaluate the PAB as a value adding construct by exploring meaningful and realistic ways to improve the PAB’s structure, purpose and profile so that it is prepared to meet the challenges posed by likely changes to Nominet, its members and the constantly evolving .uk namespace.

I would like to suggest a working group to consider the following

  1. How does the PAB add value to Nominet’s policy process?
  2. The remit of Nominet’s PAB
  3. A clear vision and mission for Nominet’s PAB, for the Board’s consideration
  4. A recommendation for future PAB composition (elected/appointed)
  5. Alternative PAB structures for suggestion, for example:
    1. Subgroups/working groups
    2. Expertise pool
    3. Member segment representatives (declared affiliations)
    4. Benchmarking against relevant advisory committees (e.g. ccTLDs, organizations from governance review)
    5. Collaborating with Nominet HR on architecting PAB Job descriptions and requirements
    6. Visibility of the PAB
      1. Stakeholder engagement for the PAB
      2. Target-setting and KPIs for PAB

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,