Received 22 December 2016
I respond to your invitation for feedback on the CNP changes herewith.
Internet NZ’s proposed solution to force Registrants who have failed to respond to the CNP in the first two years since introduction indicates failure of the original policy at multiple levels and is a cynical, partial solution at best.
As I have recently blogged about in damning detail, (http://www.dennis.co.nz/2016/12/internet-nz-admits-nz-balls-up/) according to the Minutes of the Board meeting more than six thousand names, representing probably over 5,000 entities (15,759 – 5,903 x 65% = 6,406 – in the absence of any meaningful information, assuming one person per unique string) have ended up in a totally unnecessary conflict situation as a result of the way the 2LD introduction was affected. This, aside even from the way that the proposal was rammed through by those with an agenda!
At the time I blogged my belief (http://www.dennis.co.nz/2014/03/nz-second-level-final-submission/) that this substantial change was essentially a money-grab led by a small vocal and influential group. That Internet NZ has NOT reduced the wholesale price since is a strong validator of this claim. Nor have they [disgracefully] even indicated how additional benefit has or will be achieved for the public with their/your considerable windfall. Ongoing income from an additional 112,674 2LD .nz domains (as at November 2016) is not insignificant.
While in my blogging I have identified four problems that Internet NZ has created with the way it introduced the 2LD .nz space, the core issue is that the “conflicted” status is a clear, tacit acknowledgement that they have created a huge and I believe totally unnecessary problem. In my recent blog I detail the simple solution which will address the core issue, then actually SOLVE the problem, rather than as this proposal does, simply REDUCE the number of problems they have created, and even then only the relatively easy problems to sort.
If the Board of Internet NZ truly had the courage of their convictions and actually honoured their longstanding policy of first-come-first-served they would apply this TODAY retrospectively to all conflicted names and the problem would entirely disappear, simply and ethically. Unhappy customers of more than six thousand ‘conflicted’ names, all created knowingly by and now acknowledged by Internet NZ would be appreciative. This patch-up proposal would also no longer be necessary.
In the interests of clarity and for those who have not read my earlier blogs and submission, all Internet NZ need to is offer the .nz domain to the FIRST Registrant of a particular domain string; then to the next Registrant by date and so on. Simple. Ethical. Honours the principle of first-come-first-served. This can even be done today and within a very short period there will be NO conflicted names. NO court cases. NO conflicts. NO injustice. The Board would need to eat humble pie of course but that aside, it could be done.
The original problem stems from the proponents’ erroneous presentation that the .nz space simply has the same status as a new additional option like for example .com.nz. It’s not and never has been. It is and always was going to be a fundamental change to the .nz usage, and perceptions. This is why the serious players in the industry sought recognition of their (and their client’s) investment into digital IP during the initial consultation. Internet NZ though had a clear agenda and simply failed to address this issue constructively. This failure to grapple with serious concerns constructively is also why the current proposal is required. It’s also why I call it a patch-up rather than a solution.
As a true solution would require an acknowledgement from the current Board of an error two years ago under the same Chairman David Farrar, sadly, it will I am sure, never happen. Instead the problem will likely remain and be presented as “just inevitable/ necessary”, of which it is neither.
Note the words of ‘defence against logic’ noted by the Board in their Minutes “There is no plan to change the overall tenet of agreement being required to allow the name at the second level to be registered and also no plan to introduce any timeframe on the conflicts being resolved.“
Ostrich-behaviour to a tee. A problem exists. We may have created it but it will remain. No plan. No plan. Total arrogance and utter foolishness!
My feedback in response to this request for comment is that the Board of Internet NZ should NOT proceed with this proposal which will of course very likely reduce the number of supposedly conflicted names within whatever period is chosen. This would be little more than a PR stunt and possibly have a feel-good moment for the ones who introduced the problem when the numbers in the conflicted category drop. Other than Internet NZ (who created the problem and will have an interest in presenting good news to the world when the numbers drop), who really cares whether there are 6,406 or 5,406 or 4,046, or even just 46 conflicts when you are one of them . . . especially crazy when there can easily be ZERO conflicts?
The REAL problems (like as I explained in my recent blog post with the example of the conflicted domain <redacted>.org.nz) will of course remain after this proposal is enacted with the BIG and serious conflicts totally untouched. To my mind this should be seen as a disgrace to any right-thinking citizen, within New Zealand or globally. I don’t care how popular or powerful the individuals are who have introduced this problem are, if they wanted a change that lined their coffers substantially; then forced their plans through at the cost of bringing shame upon the previously well-recognised good management of the .nz space; and introduced a problem for thousands of people in the business and Internet community then they should be held to account. I attempt to do that here and have done so in more detail on my blog.
Indeed, serious players in this space, who have given Internet NZ the chance for the last two years to deal with fallout now have the proof that Internet NZ has deliberately, knowingly introduced a problem; that the problem has now been quantified and that [sadly] the people entrusted to run the system for the benefit of the users of the Internet clearly have their own interests first:
a) increased income;
b) protecting their personal butts having made a total b*lls-up in the first instance; and
c) [incredibly] accept that the problem will remain ad infinitum.
As I explain in my recent post, knowingly introducing a problem into a commercial environment; consciously opting to cause a conflict situation and effectively telling those adversely affected to “stick it – because . . . ” would be an actionable cause for court action in many jurisdictions.
I believe that Internet NZ could now be highly exposed legally should any entity realise that their original decision that created a totally unnecessary “conflicted” status, and now the proposed resolution (on review) actually runs totally contrary to the entire tenet of Internet NZ’s longstanding policy that first-in should be first-served. I would be delighted to see the legal eagles bring this matter into the court arena and have it thrashed out with greater minds than mine and would be happy to help anyone who wanted to fix the problem, that some 6,406 people currently have, in this way.
Internet NZ, you have been warned, again.
Thank you for asking for my opinion. I have no wish to comment on the secondary subjects for which feedback is invited.
Regards
[signed]
Dennis A. Smith
Personal Disclosure: I detail my past interests in the domain industry in my recent blog post. They extend back some twenty years and are extensive.