Thank you for taking the time to respond to me in great detail.

I accept many of the points you make and maybe I am upset and over-reacting.

However this is my business and livelihood we are talking about here…You write stories and I sell domains.

I though do take offensive that i’d rather “continue down a path of suspicious aggression”.

I gave two years of my life to the Nominet PAB and attended every meeting – not something I particularly enjoyed when it was so hostile. I really do hope the new PAB (ICANN styley) will be better and who knows maybe i’ll even get an invite?

I also had to leave a rather highly paid job through stress of it all and lost one of my websites (deleting.co.uk) in the process.

Therefore I’m all for mending bridges however it is a two-way street i’m afraid.

Please keep writing the stories and i’ll be happy to respond.

Cheers,

Andrew Bennett

You appear to be reading hidden meaning into some of this post, which is a little peculiar although perhaps understandable considering recent history.

On that point I would strongly encourage you to see these votes as an opportunity to mend bridges rather than continue down a path of suspicious aggression.

But as to your points:

1. You take exception to my saying that domainers used Nominet’s own systems to put representatives on the Board and PAB. I’m not sure what I can do about that because it is, after all, entirely true. It is also what sparked the whole Board crisis and this governance review.

But I would like you to note that I did not go into the whys and wherefores of that situation because, frankly, these votes should help put that issue to bed. You appear to believe that I am implying you personally and Jim Davies did not have backing beyond domainers – but that is self-evidently not true because you were voted on. I am afraid you are reading into the text hidden meaning.

In fact, I specifically go on about how it is a shame that the new directors will not be directly elected. I go on about I hope the Board will deal with domainer concerns and also warn up a build-up of pressure if this isn’t done. The post also notes the new PAB model where interested parties can get involved.

So if anything I think I have over-emphasised the pressure points within Nominet’s membership.

2. The new Board make-up. You may be right here. I simply added the new directors and new execs to the existing Board. Not that it matters particularly but it would be good to get it right; will check it out.

3. It was your strong views, among others, re: membership pricing that caused the Board to withdraw the request to be able to change prices. So you have been heard and were responded to.

Unfortunately that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem with membership pricing. Rather than have an allergic reaction to any suggestion of a membership price change, you would do well to try to understand why people are proposing changes.

I suggested reducing the upfront member fee and increase the annual subscription to fund it (assuming that the cost of becoming a member stays the same for Nominet). It could well be that the annual subscription would only need to increase by 10 pounds – and if that resulted in a more engaged membership, I think it would be a small price to pay.

But anyway, it was just one suggestion. The big problem is that no one really had a good grasp of who all of these members are and what they want.

I disagree with you entirely re: compliance. If a member cannot even provide Nominet with a link to functioning website, then can they really be said to be a Nominet member? Do they deserve voting rights? This is a crucial aspect of the membership model. These questions have to be asked and the UK Internet community will need to decide on the answers.

This Board vote to look at the model is a clear acceptance by 95 percent of members that Nominet can no longer keep its head in the sand on this issue.

And with respect to this and your comments re: types of members (point 4). I think we can probably agree on one thing: neither of us have an accurate view of who the members are and how they breakdown.

The first thing Nominet will need to do is develop an objective process for finding out exactly who its members are. And from there everyone will be able to have more informed discussions about what to do going forward.

5. I’m not a big fan of passive-aggressive behaviour. I haven’t asked BERR what they think. But then I’m not sure that’s at all relevant to this article, which was a rundown and analysis of the Board votes.

I might do a follow-up article asking whether the UK government is now content – but then since there is legislation going through Parliament on this, I doubt very much whether I’ll get a usable response. Probably best to wait until the Bill is in the Commons – at which point I have little doubt that the rest of the media will be all over it.

So broadly, I think your response it a little over-the-top but I do appreciate your commenting. Please do pick me up on any points above that you don’t think adequately respond to yours.

1. You say that “it was domainers frustrated with what they viewed as unfair decisions, who started using Nominet’s own systems to put representatives on Nominet’s Board and Public Advisory Body”.

I may be a domainer, however how do you explain how I got the most votes anyone has ever got in a PAB election? (you can see from my Linkedin CV I have varied interests including being a registrar). Due to the weighted voting rights you do not get elected to Nominet or even pass EGM resolutions unless you have wide support. Also please identify the other domainers that got elected? – Jim Davies for example is an IP lawyer the last time I checked.

2. You also say that: “The Board will be expanded from the current six (four non-exec directors plus CEO and chairman) to 11 (three independent directors and up to two more Nominet executives)”.

This is incorrect as I understand it will be upto 10 directors:

3 appointed independent non-executive directors
4 elected non-executive directors and
up to 3 executives with an initial position that we would have the CEO and one other.
http://www.nominet.org.uk/about/consultations/governance/

3. You also say “Change the membership pricing model.”

As a small member of Nominet I am so greatful and relieved that the first half of article 19A remains intact making this not possible. See draft articles http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/40041_Draft_Articles_final.pdf

£100 + vat is affordable every year and I do comply to everything Nominet request from me. Therefore I also disagree with “Start enforcing some compliance” as Nominet do this already.

4. You say that “A HUGE number of Nominet members aren’t really doing anything”. In my opinion members do not renew their membership without using it – they are just using it for different reasons and not voting. For example dropcatchers have to become members in order to use the DAC: http://www.nominet.org.uk/other/dac/
How about licensing the DAC differently like the Public Register Search Service (PRSS) currently is?
http://www.nominet.org.uk/other/prss/

If you take a look at the membership figures they are actually going down – see board reports:

“As at 31 December 2009 there were 2,805 active members”.
“There were 2891 active members and 4031 active tags as at 30th November 2007″.

5. As a journalist I would also expect you to ask BERR for a comment on this and why the Public Interest articles were necessary. They may not wish to reply however you could always put in a Freedom of Information request.

However that said I do agree with you on many points raised and overall a good analysis of the situation.