It's time for me to buy a new laptop, the old one having gone well past the point of pension.

There was a time when I would simply have bought the lightest Toshiba I could afford, but things have become so much more confusing since I last pried open my wallet, dodged the moths, and bought a Portégé.

As my colleague Daniel Robinson points out in his latest video review, the lightweight end of the notebook market is currently undergoing a schism. While some ultraportables I'd like to own are the wrong side of two grand, you can now also find low-spec subnotebooks with very low prices. These can even be had under a kilo and under £350, in the shape of the latest Asus Eee PC 900.

Interest in Asus's wee beastie is acute - at our recent Channel Expo show, quite a few of the attending resellers were huddled in the Asus stand and keen to see the Eee in action with its new and bigger screen. It's not often that an 8.9-inch screen is considered bigger, such was the pixie-sized nature of the older 7-inch Eee PC 701.

Despite its low RRP, there is still an attractive margin to be made on the 900 model. Asus has clearly worked miracles in its own supply chain to keep the wholesale price so low.

Lovely as the Eee PC is, I found the keyboard too small for my not-very-fat fingers. I couldn't touch-type reliably, which rules it out, sadly.

I got on better with HP's 2133 Mini-Note, which boasts a slightly larger keyboard. This is about the smallest keyboard on which I can comfortably type without errors, although it would no doubt be bad for the wrists. In the office I use a split ergonomic keyboard, but the Mini-Note would be OK for short bursts.

But while my wrists might get by, I'm not sure my eyes would. The Mini-Note's 1280x768 screen is crisp and colourful, but each pixel seems about the size of an ant's toenail. System fonts show up in hair-fine lines. It's just about useable for my ageing eyes, but I would prefer something with the same physical screen size and a lower pixel count - the 1024x600 screen on the Asus, in fact, would be ideal.

I can't hang around waiting for someone to marry the Mini-Note keyboard with the Eee PC's screen, so I guess I will have to buy something completely different.

Having said that, I've just sent back to Acer a 17-inch, desktop replacement behemoth that I've enjoyed using on long-term test. I loved the screen and keyboard on that. Now, if only someone could offer a 17-inch screen with a lightweight chassis that doesn't cost an arm and a leg...

I'm now the last person on the launch team still involved in the publication - then as software editor, now as editor in chief of a group comprising IT Week, CRN, BusinessGreen.com and Computing.

But while my role has changed out of all recognition, the spirit of IT Week is still the same. In 1998 we set out to create a business weekly that would be really worth reading, that would provide no-nonsense information for senior IT professionals - and that's what IT Week still provides. When we surveyed a representative sample IT Week's audience recently, 86 percent rated the print weekly as good or excellent, with only 13 percent ranking it average and only two percent giving it the thumbs down. With almost a quarter of readers choosing "excellent", we are happy to know that we are still providing a worthwhile service.

Looking back, I actually remember issue two rather better than issue number one. The first issue had a long lead-up, but number two was the first we actually wrote in a week (with hangovers from the launch party, too), so it was of course a lot more intense.

For issue two I wrote a news story about software giant Oracle that then-news-editor Martin Veitch put on the cover, about Oracle's questionable handling of the impending Millennium Bug problem.

Oracle didn't like it, not a bit of it, and Oracle's PR sent me to Coventry as result. For what must have been a year afterwards, calls for comment went unanswered and my name fell off the invite list for press conferences and events.

This cold-shoulder treatment made my job as software editor a bit tricky in those early months, but as IT Week's reputation grew it probably did Oracle more of a disservice than it did me. That kind of overreaction is, thankfully, a lot rarer among spin doctors these days. Blogging, which was of course unheard of a decade ago, has changed the perception of criticism quite a bit. Most companies have become both thicker skinned and more nimble and professional about addressing their own failings.

Talking of which, I'd be very happy to hear your thoughts on IT Week - good and bad. Tell me what we're doing right and what we're doing wrong, and we'll do our best to take appropriate action.

My pal thought web 3.0 would be a kind of merging of web and TV, whereby sites can be delivered entirely through the medium of moving images and sound. I volunteered that this, while by no means out of the question, would by a nightmare. I already despise web-sites that are overly reliant on Macromedia Flash, so I for one would not welcome further migration in this direction.

But then I am middle-aged. Perhaps the young things think Flash-based sites are just great.

My own feeling is that web 2.0 will be about filtering. It will be about saying, “I like this content, show me more like this,” and “I don’t like this content, don’t show me anything like it again.”

This filtered fussiness ought to be as granular as you like. Read a comment by an idiot? Click to filter out the bozo in future. Don’t like a particular journalist at The Guardian? Click to filter the hack out. And on the flipside, if you love the witty, incisive comments by BlabberMouth23 you should be able to click to bring them to the top, or be notified when the next pearl of wisdom is plonked on the site. Love columns by Avery Wiseman at the Grauniad? Click to have his latest thoughts flagged up large on the home page.

Of course a true web 3.0 experience would involve visiting very few actual home pages - you might see them when you first stumble across a new site. Thereafter, you’ll want to plug a feed into your reader, which will filter all of the stories, pictures, posts, videos, comments and claptrap from your feeds into categories with sorted duplicates and related items, just as Google News currently does in a much less personalised fashion.

“You’ll be able to do all of that with the semantic web,” my pal said, waving a dismissive hand.

I’m not convinced by that. My understanding is that the semantic web relies on site providers to honestly describe their content. Any innovation involving the internet in which honesty is a required element is a non starter - it will be spammed into a black hole, alongside the otherwise excellent concept of the trackback.

What do you think the next phase of the web will involve?

Presumably the PPA rents its list of highly accurate editorial names, because I get quite a few letters from the less switched-on public relations firms addressed to Ms Lem as well. You can tell they are not the brightest bulbs in the PR box because they send letters, rather than dispatching emails or picking up the phone and finding out that I have a very deep voice for a Ms.

It’s not quite as silly as the period, in the mid-1990s, when I used to get mail addressed to “Mr Me Lem Bingley”. It took me a while to work out that a bunny must have called and asked, “Who should I send press releases to?” and I must have replied, “You can send them to me, Lem Bingley.”

Back in the present, I’m concerned that my honorary status as a female journalist may get me into some awkward spots. The other day I received a card inviting me to an event organised by a group called Women in the City. The event looked very interesting, and I was about to respond in the affirmative, when I suddenly stopped and thought. I’m not a woman, and I don’t work in the City. Maybe it’s not for me.

It’s interesting to take a well-publicised event and to think through where it might lead. The recent examples of data misplacement, starting with HMRC’s infamous lost discs in the post from last November, provide a great example.

As a wake up call for business in general, these data losses will fuel interest in some obvious things, and subsequent action is likely to boost the fortunes of particular IT vendors. On the up will be things like:

• Security software in general
• Encryption software in particular (good news for suppliers like SecurStar, GuardianEdge, Check Point and PGP)
• Access control and single-sign-on software (from stalwarts Sun, CA, RSA, IBM-Tivoli, plus specialists like Imprivata)
• Account and identity management tools (Quest Software, NetIQ/Attachmate)
• Systems management software (LanDesk, Tivoli, MS-SMS, Unicenter, etc)
• Database and data management software (Oracle, IBM DB2, Progress, MySQL/Sun, Postgres, Actuate, Brocade, etc)
• Hardware-based access security (Aladdin, SecurID)
• Security consulting (big consultants plus BT, Verizon, 7Safe, Insight, ComSec, etc)
• Security-as-a-service (BT Counterpane, VeriSign, Symantec)
• ISO 17799  certification

Thinking more laterally suggests a whole host of other likely springs of interest. The current furore may be good for Microsoft, if it hastens adoption of Windows Vista - because the Enterprise edition includes BitLocker encryption software as standard.

It surely increases the likelihood of a new regulations. A new breach disclosure law is likely - after all, ministers are now highly incentivised to demonstrate that government departments are not the only organisations capable of losing personal data on a grand scale.

Politicians are also likely to give more resources and more teeth to the Information Commissioner's Office, so as to be seen to be doing something to correct the problem. 

At the less likely end of the spectrum, there may be a resurgence in interest in full public key infrastructure (PKI) schemes, of the kind that last seemed necessary when Baltimore was worth billions rather than being bankrupt.

More likely is that there will be increased interest in server-based computing (benefiting Citrix, Microsoft/Softricity and the like); boosted fortunes for the makers of thin client and, I suspect, thin laptops such as HP’s recently introduced example.

A similar jerk of the knee will also lead buyers to rack-mounted blade PCs from the likes of IBM and HP, and related management software from ClearCube and VMWare.

Fear of data breaches will also stoke the already fierce interest in software as a service, and Saas-based CRM systems from NetSuite and Salesforce.com. In turn, this will encourage more firms to look at cloud-based services like Google Apps.

And finally I predict an increasing spirit of false confidence. Lots of firms will put in place technically superb systems to which any passing hacker will be able to gain access with a few employee names and a list of the 50 most common passwords.

Movie Maker is an "easy and fun" video editing application that ships as an embedded part of Microsoft’s recent Windows operating systems. It has a relatively poor reputation, so I should have steered well clear, but I kind of accidentally got sucked in to using it. And initially I started to feel that it wasn’t actually all that bad.

Anyway, the details of why I ended up using it are unimportant. Suffice to say that I now feel its poor reputation is deserved and I won’t be using it again. But, male ego being what it is, I didn’t know when to quit. Along the way I learned some lessons that I’d like to pass on to other unfortunate mugs like me, who are having problems with Windows Movie Maker:

1. If you’re tempted to use Windows Movie Maker, don’t.
2. If you’ve ignored step 1 and find you have a completed Movie Maker (.MSWMM) project file, you may surprise yourself and be quite pleased with the result. By which I mean it may look quite good in preview mode. However, the best bet is to give up now. Don’t be tempted to click “Save Movie File” on the File menu, to export a finished edit. It will only lead to heartache and disappointment.
3. If you’ve ignored step 2, you may find that the .WMV file created by Movie Maker exhibits a picture-size different from your source material. Movie Maker only exports in the frame sizes and bit-rates it deems suitable, so if they don’t suit you, then the best bet is to give up. You may also find that the audio on your file sucks. I mean sucks. Like you’re listening to the audio with a kazoo jammed in each ear. Give up now.
4. I’m assuming you’re pressing on. Download Microsoft’s Windows Media Encoder. Unlike Movie Maker, this is a decent program, albeit a relatively unfriendly one. Don’t be tempted to ignore its onerous system requirements: if your PC isn’t up to snuff then give up now. The software will run on a sub-spec PC but it will produce movies that look like Ray Harryhausen shot them in 1955.
5. Media Encoder will let you resize your WMV file and it will do a reasonable job of preserving visual clarity and audio fidelity. You will probably need to go back to Movie Maker and create a new WMV source file using the “High quality video (large)” setting. Then you can use Media Encoder to create a file at the exact frame size and bit rate that you wanted originally. You may be lucky enough to get a good result from this. However, if you’ve used any fragments of non-native audio in your Movie Maker file - MP3 music, say - then Movie Maker is still going to bite you. No matter what quality setting you choose, it will create a WMV file that sounds like a bee has flown into your ear. Media Encoder can’t fix this. The best course at this point is to give up.
6. If you’re still with me, you poor deluded fool, then you may have acceptable visuals with terrible sound. You’ll need to use something else to edit any sounds that you’ve added like background music. Go back to Movie Maker and make notes on the timing of your introduced sounds. Then delete them, and create a new, high-quality WMV without them. Check any remaining audio. If the native audio is still hopeless, you will need to give up. If it’s acceptable, then you can run the file through Encoder again to get the frame size and bit rate you want.
7. Take the audio fragments you wanted and, referring to your notes, use an audio editor - Audacity, say - to create a new file of the right length, with the right sounds in the right places to match your Movie Maker visuals. Take the resulting MP3 file and use Media Encoder to convert it to the Windows Media Audio (.WMA) format. Then locate Windows Media Stream Editor (it will have arrived when you installed Media Editor). This lets you combine different media streams into a single output file (confusingly called an Audience). Use it to splice your WMA audio overlay with the WMV visuals and audio.
8. You may now have a WMV file of acceptable quality. Enjoy it, but learn your lesson. Don’t go near Movie Maker again.

Update, 29 Jan 08:
A simpler alternative to steps 6-8 is to pass any MP3 files or other non-native audio through the Media Encoder to create .WMA files. These can then be readily dropped into Movie Maker's Audio/Music track and edited in-place as required. This will provide acceptable, but certainly not hi-fi, audio for your movie.

Employers’ group the CBI is full of praise, with the body’s director of human resources policy, Susan Anderson, saying, “This is very welcome investment which should lead to more specialist science teachers who can be inspirational, confident and enthusiastic about their subject. That is crucial if we are to raise young people's interest and attainment in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects and if the UK is to stay a leading world economy, able to compete with the emerging economic powerhouses of China and India.”

I’d be enthusiastic too, had I not been collared at the weekend by an apoplectic particle physicist. Rather than probing the inner workings of the universe, my academic friend is currently staring into a financial black hole. Tearing at his remaining hair he railed against the kind of blinkered central-government budgeting that advances funds to build a research centre one year and then denies the funds to run it the next. More than 10,000 scientists have signed petitions complaining about this year's Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) spending plans, and an £80m shortfall that will see lots of researchers looking for new posts. And with the funding crisis affecting the whole of the UK, a lot of good people will naturally be forced to look overseas.

So while I applaud moves to encourage our most intelligent young people to pursue a career in science and technology, it would be helpful if the money were made available to hang on to the brainboxes we already have.

Today, Green has posted about loyalty and credit cards, but there is a lesson or two for everyone in it.

Green first notes the following three reasonable business principles:

1.  Profit is a measure of business activity effectiveness
2.  Measurement is a valuable tool for management
3. Activities can be disaggregated into smaller, measurable activities.

And then lists the three bastard children into which the above have evolved:

1a.  Every business activity has value only insofar as it increases profit
2a.  If you can’t measure something, you can’t manage it
3a.  Anything worth measuring is even better measured in shorter durations and smaller units.

As Green goes on to say, “This extreme thinking has meant that the management of business these days is centred on short-term profit manipulation - not on long-term value creation.”

I’ve heard 2a, in particular, from quite a few enterprise application vendors. It makes me wonder how much responsibility the tech sector should bear for the metamorphosis of reasonable business methods into the short-termist, self-defeating competitive lunacy that we see all around us. 

Of course I’d have been wrong, as the good people at IEEE Spectrum have shown. They’ve done the leg work (or mouse work) necessary to comb through all the annual reports and work out who spends what, compiling the R&D global top 100. Their numbers are for 2006 fiscal years, as it’s tough to get good data for the year we’re still in.

The surprising top 10, in pure pile-of-dollars terms, is as follows:

1.    Toyota (Japan) $7.49bn
2.    Pfizer (US) $7.42bn
3.    Ford (US) $7.2bn
4.    Johnson & Johnson (US) $7.13bn
5.    Microsoft (US) $7.12bn
6.    DaimlerChrysler (Germany) $7bn
7.    GlaxoSmithKline (UK) $6.61bn
8.    Siemens (Germany) $6.6bn
9.    General Motors (US) $6.6bn
10.    Volkswagen (Germany) $6.03bn

As you can see, Microsoft and Siemens are the only tech companies in the top 10, with five carmakers (none of them Honda) and three healthcare companies completing the roster. The US and Germany dominate, with the UK and Japan making up the numbers.

IBM comes in at number 14 with $5.7bn spent in 2006, and Asimo fans will find Honda at 19 with $4.6bn.
Other notable entries include Intel at 12th place and $5.9bn; Finland’s Nokia at 17 with $5.1bn; and even acquisitive Oracle at the number 48 spot with $2.2bn spent in the labs.

Frankly I'm surprised that the tech sector is so poorly represented.

Of course Toyota happens to be the world’s largest automaker, and so presumably can afford to splash a bit of cash in the labs. Interestingly, IEEE Spectrum has also provided data for what it calls R&D intensity, or R&D spending as a proportion of turnover.

I put the numbers into a spreadsheet and reordered by intensity, and of course the top 10 looks rather different. These are the firms spending the most per dollar of revenue, and therefore the most committed to making business progress through research:

1.    Qinetiq (UK) 44.9% - defence
2.    Electronic Arts (US) 33.7% - tech
3.    Broadcom (US) 30.5% - tech
4.    Amgen (US) 23.6% - healthcare
5.    AMD (US) 21.3% - tech
6.    Schering-Plough (US) 20.6% - healthcare
7.    Qualcomm (US) 20.1% - tech
8.    Eli Lilly (US) 19.9% - healthcare
9.    NEC Electronics (Japan) 19% - tech
10.    Daiichi Sankyo (Japan) 18.4% - healthcare

This list (and the rest of the top 100 by intensity) seems to better match my own impressions and prejudices about tech sector spending.

Attempts to relate R&D spending to business growth are, of course, far from straightforward. As IEEE Spectrum observes:

“Apple, the one company perhaps most closely associated with innovation, doesn't even show up on the R&D leaderboard this year [and] hasn't appeared there [in the last five years]. Its absence can't be attributed to size, because Apple's sales of  $19.3bn surpassed those of 30 of the list's 100 firms. Comparing those sales to the relatively meager $712m Apple spent on R&D in 2006 yields an R&D Intensity of just 3.7 percent.”

So while it may feel like a forward-looking supplier ought to be diverting a healthy proportion of profit into creating tomorrow’s products - it ain’t necessarily so.

I like the changes a lot and find the beta a big improvement over the current mainstream Bloglines, which hasn’t really changed in a long while.

The Bloglines beta developers have clearly taken a long hard look at Google Reader before designing their upgrade, as the two function in a very similar manner. I prefer bits of both. Google’s ability to easily share content with others through a web page or RSS feed, with a simple tick, is very useful. If you’re a blogger you can add the resulting feed to a box in a sidebar, say. In an intranet context it’s very easy to provide recommended reading lists to colleagues, who can slurp up your recommendations through their own choice of content aggregator.

However, I prefer the way the Bloglines beta keeps track of what I have and haven’t read. Bloglines won’t fetch items I’ve previously read unless I tell it to. Reader, by contrast, automatically appends them to the bottom of the list of unread items if you scroll down, with a subtle colour change the only indication that you’ve seen the item before. I find this tends to waste my time.

Neither app seems inclined to let me personalise how I view new articles. I’d like to read in reverse order - ie, starting with the oldest item I’ve not yet read and working forward in time, whereas the assumption seems to be that I will always want to read the newest item first.

This is not necessarily the case, particularly in the Google aggregator. If you read and tick to share items as you go along, your shared feed ends up reading backwards - the newest items from your reading list each day become the oldest items in your shared list, and vice versa.

I’m sure both Bloglines and Google Reader will become more flexible in the future. Neither yet does what I’d really like them to do, though. What I want is an aggregator that genuinely aggregates - that can take multiple feeds and group stories together by content. For example, if six of my feeds all include a new article covering the same topic, I’d like to see them grouped together in the style of Google News.

Back in April, IT Week reader John McCormac argued that the Euro top-level domain would probably peak in popularity on the anniversary of its founding, on 7 April 2007, and thereafter find its real level of little interest. 

A graph of UK-based registrations since 1 January this year lends weight to McCormac’s view, although the slow recovery after April suggests that the .eu domain may regain it’s former popularity - albeit in about two years’ time.

I’ll happily do exactly as Hayward asks. Let me state very clearly that domaining is totally above board. Nominet thinks so. And I happen to have a few domains for sale myself. So yes, it’s the current cancellation and re-registration process that I believe needs attention, not the business of trading domains in general.

However, I’m not going to step back from the comparison with ticket touts.

“All you had to do to have a reasonable chance - as much as most other people - at a given [suspended] domain was to book it with a drop catcher,” Hayward explains “There are anywhere between half a dozen and a dozen public-facing drop catchers.”

Or in other words, if I’d paid a tout I might have got a ticket.

“What you have to realise,” Hayward adds, “is that beyond the folks who may be exploiting a loophole in the Nominet system (a very selective bit of quoting, in your follow-up post) there are many who play for high stakes totally legitimately, and have invested five figures or more to develop and constantly refine their own drop-catching software, host at the fastest possible servers with the least number of network hops to Nominet, etc. Of course they're going to do better than the average person, just like in any other undertaking where someone is approaching it from scratch and trying to compete against others who do it full-time for a living (competitive sports are a great example).”

Ticket touts, who profit from the arbitrage on a scarce resource just like domainers, also often apply a dedicated, hard-work ethic to their endeavour. As a result they often secure tickets ahead of ordinary punters and proceed to sell them on at whatever the market will bear. So I can't really see where the analogy breaks down. Other than the fact that Nominet’s rules don’t forbid it, whereas most ticket-issuing venues insist that their tickets aren’t transferable. And while ticket touting is widely hated (much like domaining), it’s not illegal.

“Getting back to the thrust of the issue,” Hayward says, thankfully, “what Nominet really needs to do is to devote a few more resources into ironing out any loopholes in the current system. If there were no back doors, no ways to ‘cheat’ the system ... then it's one possible fair system - amateurs (non-domain specialists such as small business owners and individuals) get some names at little cost or effort (through the drop catchers) and those willing to invest massive resources and funds (the pros - the near-fulltime drop catchers and domain investors) get more, because they put in more... and that's how it should be. It's called capitalism!”

This is quite a persuasive argument, putting the ball firmly in Nominet’s court. In the document I quoted yesterday, Nominet’s Emily Taylor said: “Nominet is expending significant resources in dealing with dropcatching, which is disproportionate to the percentage of our registrars who are engaged in this activity. We would prefer to focus resources on programmes which will benefit the majority of registrars.”

But given that Nominet is asking what it should do with its cash reserves, I don’t see why anyone should feel that funds allocated to enforcing the rules on dropcatching would not be money well spent. If Nominet can afford to close the loopholes, and it can, it has a duty to do so.

Finally, Hayward argues against a sealed bid system for suspended domains: “It means that the amateurs will get nothing since all the good names will be scooped up by those with the deepest pockets. This may be ‘fairer’ - and that is arguable - but I am positive it will be perceived externally as being even less fair than the current situation.”

I’m not as positive about this as Hayward. As he observes, the most successful dropcatchers are currently those who spend the most on their software and hardware and then sell caught domains on at market rates to those that can afford them. That's two sets of deep pockets standing between punters and lapsed domains.

It may be that there is no fair system, but I’m pleased that Nominet is at least looking for one.

Dropcatching - grabbing expiring domains - is perfectly legal under Nominet’s rules. After all, the old owners only have themselves to blame if they lose ownership inadvertently. However, as I wrote yesterday, it’s unclear why Nominet has not made the resale process fairer - particularly given that some domains are worth very large sums of money.

It turns out that Nominet addressed this topic at the 7 November meeting of its Policy Advisory Body (PAB). Emily Taylor, director of legal and policy at Nominet, wrote a paper on domain re-registration specifically for that meeting.

Taylor told me this afternoon that there is often “a gap between what people expect, and what is actually happening”, but that Nominet is wary of introducing changes that might make matters worse. As she puts it, “Is there a problem, and if so what is a proportionate and effective response?”

Yesterday I suggested a sealed bid system might be appropriate, and indeed Taylor says Nominet has discussed “a wide spectrum” of responses: “If people think there should be a more even playing field, there’s a lot that can be done,” she said. Indeed, the agenda for the 7 November meeting lists the re-registration topic under “Wait list, auctions and lotteries”.

It seems clear to me that change is needed. As Taylor explained, some naive domain owners have even assumed that the easiest way to switch registrar is to let the domain lapse and re-register with a different firm. As Taylor’s paper explains, this tends not to work: “We are routinely asked how best to acquire a domain name if it is not renewed. The honest answer is ‘you won’t’... The technical resources and ability of dropcatchers make it highly unlikely that ‘ordinary registrants’ will be able to register a domain name on cancellation.”

As the report explains, even legitimate registrars would be lucky to successfully dropcatch a valuable domain:

“• Significant advantage is gained by a minority of registrars who circumvent our current systems (e.g. through creating fictitious memberships, and thus doubling access limits). We actively look for these and have implemented additional checks, but the practice continues.
• We are concerned that our current systems and processes may favour a very small subset of our stakeholders, to the detriment of the majority. Whilst fair competition between registrars is beneficial to the wider community, we are becoming increasingly concerned that advantage for a few is being gained through unfair means.”

Despite these findings, Taylor says change is not imminent. “It’s really early days and it’s hard to tell you the timescales - it could be months - it takes time to consult and to get [our response] right,” she said. “The PAB gives advice, but we also do wider consultations very regularly. It may well be appropriate to go wider in this case.”

Nominet is clearly interested in feedback on this issue, so if you have a view - either in favour of the status quo or urging for change, you should not hesitate to let Nominet know.

To check the other side of the coin, I contacted some of the people who took issue with my post yesterday, who I assumed to be domain traders set up as registrars.

Tony, who said he is not a registrar affiliated with Nominet, said, “I do not have any objections to a sealed bid system in principle ... [but it] would not work, however, because although you highlight that it would ‘make more money for Nominet’ (a mere profit shifting exercise at best), Nominet cannot be seen to make a profit - and I believe its articles of association would prevent it from doing this.”

Tony is right - any sealed bid system or other mechanism would have to be done at arm’s length, through third-party registrars, because Nominet is a not-for-profit organisation. And as Tony pointed out, Nominet already brings in more revenue than it knows what to do with. “I would much rather the company revised the charges it makes, but it is clear that Nominet UK would rather continue to amass this level of reserves, and frankly distribute them in a way which was not really intended when the company was established,” Tony said. “I rather think that Nominet UK is an iceberg, in that there is significantly more to it than most people can see.”

Tony added: “It may surprise you to know that in a fair number of cases, [domain traders] are just as critical of Nominet UK as you appear to be. Maybe for different reasons, I acknowledge, but it stems from the underlying problem of [Nominet’s] monopoly position ... and the fact that it is a private company.”

There are clearly two sides to this debate, but ordinary businesses and end users are unarguably caught in the middle.

I’ll keep you posted.