Looks like, everything about SK domain that is happening right now, is more about money and politics, than about technology and inovation.
I must say, that as IT Technical Support Specialist, SK ccTLD have very bad management and “changes” that are happening right now, are not for community. It is sad, that this non-revokable contract is real, but I hope, this contract will be somehow cancelled.
If community have the rights for use of the domain, why there is no politics for changing or revoking current technical manager of SK domain? Then it is not democracy, but more like oligarchy.
I believe that domain management will soon get into the right hands and will really serve people in the community who use the domain.

There’s no doubt that you feel strongly that .sk has been mismanaged and the sale of the registry provides an opportunity to introduce a multi-stakeholder approach.

And it seems you are getting increasingly upset that the end result you desire is not happening. You probably don’t know why. So let me give you a clue.

If you use innuendo, bullying and abuse to try to get your way but the people you are attempting to bully, who you disparage and who you attack are in charge and you have no leverage beyond persuasion, then you are going to fail.

Here’s what you could have done:

* Made a case for why it’s important that the Slovakian internet community should have more of a say in the running of the registry
* Approach government representatives and make your case in private
* Gone to Centralnic in private and made your case
* Offered to work with the government and registry operator to everyone’s benefit
* Talked to the press about why you felt there was an opportunity here to improve Slovakia’s registry

Here’s what you did:

* Made inaccurate claims about .sk being “stolen” and railed about it
* Accused all previous .sk operators of being corrupt and/or incompetent
* Accused all previous government officials of being corrupt
* Tried to bully the current deputy prime minister into giving you want you wanted
* Attacked him when he tried to meet you halfway
* Repeatedly attempted to damage the reputation of Centralnic by cherry-picking problems
* Turned the issue into a political one by including a new political party into the mix

And when an article was written pointing all this out (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/08/slovaks_ask_government_to_repatriate_sk_internet/) - written by myself - what do you do? Did you?

a) Accept that the incorrect rhetoric was damaging your cause but ask to be heard about why the broader issue was still valid, or
b) Attack the author personally and claim conspiratorially he had been paid by Centralnic while not addressing any of the points?

Yep, it was b). Then, when the author took another look at the issue due to all the anguish and published a second story (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/28/slovaks_claim_purest_intentions_controlling_sk/) that pointed out all the inaccuracies and false claims you were perpetuating, did you?

a) Acknowledge that maybe your approach really wasn’t working and it might be time to rethink your strategy of attacking anyone that doesn’t buy into your version of history, or
b) Send more unpleasant tweets and write an article on CircleID in which you imply, again, that the story was also somehow paid for by Centralnic and again repeat the false claims that no one outside your pressure group actually believes?

Yep, b) again.

I really think you need to re-evaluate the position you are in and the best way to achieve your end goal. Promoting false information and attacking anyone that questions it may have worked for you in the past in the small Slovakian internet community.

But the reality is that you are having to ask to be given greater say over the running of .sk. And no one is going to want to give it to you if you continue to behave like a petulant mini-Trump.

Hope this is useful. I look forward to not reading your unpleasant response.

Kieren

I feel I have to chip in here with a defense, at least partially, of Kieren.

The idea that he would take a bribe from CentralNic, or anyone else, to write a slanted article is laughable. He’s been doing this job for the best part of two decades and he’s not about to throw his career away for some quick payola.

He’s the kind of guy who, if offered some financial incentive to compromise his impartiality, would record the conversation and upload the MP3 under a headline filled with UPPER CASE LETTERS. As would I.

Likewise, it’s silly to think that CentralNic would even make such an offer in the first place. It would be reputational suicide, if only for the aforementioned reason. They’ve been advertising on my news blog (Domain Incite) for years—literally putting food on my table—and have never once asked for any special treatment, even when I write things they probably don’t like.

Getting accused of having your ethics bought has long been a sure-fire way to raise the hackles of any reporter. It happens constantly when people don’t like what you write. It’s tiresome and irritating.

Recently, another way to elicit the same kind of feeling has been to (mis)use the words “fake news”.

To be clear: “fake news” is NOT the same as “bad reporting”. Bad reporting is when reporters get it wrong by mistake, stupidity, or laziness. Fake news is deliberately fabricated articles that have no basis in reality, designed as either click-bait or to achieve some political end. Nothing The Register has ever published in the 20 years I’ve been reading it could be considered “fake news”. Not even the stuff I used to write for it ;)

So, I can well understand why a reporter would take it personally, and maybe even start insulting people on Twitter, if it was suggested that he has been pocketed by a commercial interest and/or that he writes “fake news”. 

With all that in mind, I must admit I find the original Reg article completely baffling for several reasons, including:

* It seems to me that the Ondrejs make a plausible prima facie argument that .sk at some point used a change of address in the IANA database to mask what was actually possibly a redelegation to a new entity. It’s far too late now to worry about what happened in 1999, no matter which side you’re on, but I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the idea of some creative maneuvering back then out of hand, as the Reg coverage appears to.

* I’m confused why certain views are attributed to the .sk campaigners that they clearly do not hold. Who said they want to stick to the crappy manual back-end? Who said they don’t want foreigners to be able to buy .sk domains? Caletka’s original post on Medium.com says the exact opposite on both counts. The petition explicitly refers to a desire to move to a new service provider. The sequel Reg article appears to backpedal on these claims, suggesting that the campaigners may not have been being unreasonable to ask for corrections in the first place.

* It’s also confusing to me about how Progressive Slovakia fits into all of this. Who are the registrar-affiliated Progressives that stand to benefit that the article refers to? Presumably not all 9,700+ signatories to the petition. So who? Is it just this Truban bloke referenced in the sequel article? When I was doing background for a now-abandoned article last week he was the only one I could find (but I did get a bit flustered by all the unfamiliar Slovak names, maybe I missed some).

I’m fully aware that this comment is neither solicited nor wanted by either side, but sometimes I get so wound up by an online argument I can’t help myself but join in and bugger the consequences.

So, sorry in advance and all that. :)