Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman
#2I've been following this saga for a while. but always based on The Register's coverage. Is the current management really as entirely screwed up and corrupt as they appear?
Re: Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman
#3Can someone please give a little bit more context for people out of the loop? It’s confusing to understand who stands for what (board of .uk, that company, the ex BBC dude) and what is/was going on.
Re: Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman
#4I've been following this saga for a while. but always based on The Register's coverage. Is the current management really as entirely screwed up and corrupt as they appear?
Yes
Re: Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman
#5Can someone please give a little bit more context for people out of the loop? It’s confusing to understand who stands for what (board of .uk, that company, the ex BBC dude) and what is/was going on.
https://www.techradar.com/news/nominet-ceo-finally-ousted-af...
The current board is made up of many vested interests, hence the resistance for change.
Re: Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman
#6ICANN has failed us, Nominet has failed us, Public Interest Registry has failed us. We definitely need some better system where a single entity going rogue can't affect millions of domain owners. I can see two approaches.
One is where we make it technically impossible for DNS operators higher in the tree to mess with us. That's what the GNU Name System proposes with the "hyper hyper local root", a petname system which supports delegation, to defeat censorship.
Another one is a domain name cooperative like CCOR.org attempted to build. So the organization serving our TLD is in fact operating transparently in the interests of its members paying administrative fees (think In my view we need both! Replace the corrupt pro-business ICANN with a democratic non-profit foundation, and at the same time make it technically harder for bad actors to mess with everyone.
Having a (domain) name on the network should be a free and accessible public service for all. They're half a dozen lines of text (counting glue records and DNSSEC anchors) in a database, it's OUTRAGEOUS we have to pay for that at all. In the early nineties, it used to cost money to host just a few kilobytes of information, and that's why we introduced administrative fees for domain names. Why are we still paying >10$/year for less than a kilobyte of information hosting just so that shady businesses can make a profit?
Re: Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman
#7Can someone please give a little bit more context for people out of the loop? It’s confusing to understand who stands for what (board of .uk, that company, the ex BBC dude) and what is/was going on.
Not sure if this helps, but it gives a little background. This piece [1] from The Telegraph was published before the chiefs were voted out in the EGM. It says that Google, a Nominet member, was expected by activists to abstain in the EGM vote.
The Nominet saga seems to be, roughly, split between small UK members (activists unhappy with Nominet's leadership/direction), and larger overseas members (GoDaddy etc) who seem to back the status quo.
I don't think that it is known whether Google voted or abstained, but their vote would have had some clout, given the way voting rights are weighted to size of members. Perhaps Nominet's continued deafness to the activists suggests that they are confident of big-hitter support in the event of a second EGM.
Re the ex-BBC dude, another Telegraph piece [3] gives info on his stance and his background.
The Telegraph link will hit a paywall unless you turn off JS. Alternatively, the first piece was archived four weeks ago [2], and the second is available at [4].
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/03/14/google-dra...
[3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/01/30/former-bbc-c...
EDIT TO ADD: As per child comment by ohashi, this link to the vote outcome on the campaign site is informative: https://publicbenefit.uk/#support Also, as ohashi helpfully points out, "You can see Google abstained. GoDaddy and 1&1 support the status quo. Tucows, NameCheap supported the removal of the board."
Thanks for that.
Re: Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman
#8Can someone please give a little bit more context for people out of the loop? It’s confusing to understand who stands for what (board of .uk, that company, the ex BBC dude) and what is/was going on.
Not sure if this helps, but it gives a little background. This piece [1] from The Telegraph was published before the chiefs were voted out in the EGM. It says that Google, a Nominet member, was expected by activists to abstain in the EGM vote. The Nominet saga seems to be, roughly, split between small UK members (activists unhappy with Nominet's leadership/direction), and larger overseas members (GoDaddy etc) who see…
You should link the actual campaign: https://publicbenefit.uk/#support
You can see Google abstained. GoDaddy and 1&1 support the status quo. Tucows, NameCheap supported the removal of the board.
Re: Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman
#9ICANN has failed us, Nominet has failed us, Public Interest Registry has failed us. We definitely need some better system where a single entity going rogue can't affect millions of domain owners. I can see two approaches. One is where we make it technically impossible for DNS operators higher in the tree to mess with us. That's what the GNU Name System proposes with the "hyper hyper local root", a petname system whic…
But how would that work in practice ?
Like letsencrypt ?: what's needed to incite enough people to move on so that it becomes feasible and a reality (while keeping the old system alive for legacy reasons and for the time it takes for thing to settle down) ?
Re: Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if this helps, but it gives a little background. This piece [1] from The Telegraph was published before the chiefs were voted out in the EGM. It says that Google, a Nominet member, was expected by activists to abstain in the EGM vote. The Nominet saga seems to be, roughly, split between small UK members (activists unhappy with Nominet's leadership/direction), and larger overseas members (GoDaddy etc) who see…
You should link the actual campaign: https://publicbenefit.uk/#support You can see Google abstained. GoDaddy and 1&1 support the status quo. Tucows, NameCheap supported the removal of the board.
Thanks for that, you are right. I will amend.