Online infrastructure for UK workers coops

Hopefully domains.coop will do it cheaper than advertised

I've sent a email to [email protected] and [email protected] with the Subject line, "Registration of .COOP Premium Domain Names for a new UK Workers Co-op Federation":

On 1st May 2022 UK worker co-ops agreed to establish a new workers co-op federation (the exact name is yet to be decided) and we would like to register worker.coop and workers.coop and were wondering if it would be possible to do this at the usual rate rather than the premium domain name rates.

• identity.coop/premium-domains

Initially we will register the domains to existing UK co-ops with the intention to transfer legal ownership once a new legal entity has been established.

When discussing all this in the barn on Monday people were very keen for things to be set up ASAP, I promised to get things up and running in a matter of days, it is really not a big deal to change a domain name after a month and redirect the old one to the new one and I think it would be better to crack on with setting stuff up than wait until we hear back from domains.coop, is that OK with everybody?

Waiting till we hear back from them is (in my opinion) the best move forward to prevent the inevitable change in the future, hopefully they get back to Chris soon

Apologies, I read that just post wrong. If you're happy to go ahead without the domain then that's fine, I don't imagine it'll take a month for us to obtain the actual domain we want, but might end up setting something up only to get to change in a few days or a week. Either way I'm easy it's up to the consensus of others on what to do

RE the money, could we not write a solid fund proposal for the domain costs?

Can anyone update or elaborate on what the “decisions at Selgars Mill “are? Wasn’t at the WCW so this is all a bit of a mystery.

Hi, too get a sense it might useful to look at the first set of sessions at the worker co-op weekend programme

In summary there were a series of sessions looking at the potential to create a new worker co-op organisation, what it could look like and do. There were working groups set-up, one was a mobilisation one so hopefully there is plan for how to engage those not in attendance. If in doubt talk to Tim or Ian who were both there from essential.

I feel that this project may risk being rushed through. Although it was introduced to a handful of worker co-ops attending the Worker Co-op Weekend (29th April to 1st May), the "discussion paper" that was presented at the event was simply printed for reading as the workshop began. I do not remember seeing this document as part of the WCW agenda papers. Please can this be circulated for all to read & comment.

I feel that it is very important that the Worker Co-op Council, as an elected body inside Co-operatives UK, do NOT take the informal feedback from the WCW as a "go-ahead" to create a new worker co-op organisation (workers.coop ???). There needs to be some wider consultation of the worker co-op members of Coops UK & beyond (non-members & Radical Routes).

More information needs to be formally presented & benefits/costs explained, so that the worker co-op movement can be in engaged. This project will fail if it is a few, closed-circle enthusiasts pushing through radical changes without such wider engagement. There needs to be a dialogue as to how a new body will work alongside (in co-operation with) already established UK organisations such as Coops UK & Solidfund. There was a comment at the WCW that this move must NOT be seen as "England" led either. There should be ground-up engagement, across the UK nations.

I understand the opportunities that workers.coop might provide, but having been an elected director of ICOM, I also fear that past mistakes can easily be made.

If this discussion is simply about spending cash to buy .coop or .uk domain names then a proposal to Solidfund would easily meet such costs.

Hi Tim (again!) - earlier in the year, when things were at a sensitive stage with Co-ops UK, members of the WCC and working group engaged in a long round of 1-2-1 calls with worker co-op members to gauge initial reactions to the idea of an independent network/federation. Although this was by no means scientific or properly democratic, the very positive response gave the WCC confidence to pursue it. Your warning is well taken. I think perhaps we need to try and schedule in person meetings with every worker co-op we know (in and out of CUK membership) over the next months, to inform the plan.

Hi Sion. Thanks for your flurry of comments today & yesterday. As it happens, I had a long & informative phonecall with John Atherton yesterday, in my role as Chair of the Essential Trading Management Committee (MC). I now understand the following issues...

• Internal issues within CUK concerning the "dilution" of the worker co-op agenda within the CUK Board & wider UK co-op movement.... maybe the worker co-op movement has become a bit passé.... even though we all love it ? Is that CUK issue or an internal cultural problem within the UK WC movement ?

• December 2022 target deadline, linked to CUK annual subscription renewals.

• Dual subscription model CUK & new WCF.... may need more clarification around CUK services under the simple "partner" membership

• Possible division of "services" between CUK & a new WCF

• The reasons for confidentiality & sensitivity with the internal discussions between the WCC & CUK board. It is a shame that Essential Trading was not contacted by WCC in your initial "scientific or properly democratic" dialogues.

• I have read the two key documents "Draft Vision" & "Draft agreement between CUK and WCC"

Having such a 1-2-1 discussion is helpful & I suggest that WCC needs to do this with other significant UK worker co-ops (of differing size, age, geographic location & business sector) within CUK membership, Radical Roots & outside these (if possible).

I have concerns (some already expressed here) about the pace of this project, if such a rushed process creates a flawed foundation for a new WCF organisation. These are some of my concerns...

1. Clear definition of what is meant by "worker-led". I would feel very uncomfortable with a WCF including "worker-led" organisations that do not subscribe to the ICA 7 Coop Principles, in particular ONE & TWO.

2. Transparency & accountability of assignment of "jobs".... I fully trust John Atherton as a freelance "route finder" to get a new WCF of the ground, but the process by which this job assignment discussion was made & how his post is being funded needs to be made clear.

3. The transfer of governance of the WCC from CUK to a new WCF board.... yes the WCC are elected representatives & well suited to "birth" a new WCF, but their initial term needs to be defined, together with a "job description".

4. There needs to clear definition of how SolidFund resources might be used. It makes absolute sense for a new WCF to act like the old CUK Enterprise Hub, to offer business support "bursaries" to new start or existing worker co-ops from SF. Such an approach would deliver a more strategic rather than adhoc approach to use of the SF. BUT... I am very wary of the hard "earned" SolidFund being used to set up an untested new WCF. This new body needs to stand on its own legs. As I wrote before, a blank cheque approach is very worrying.

Going forwards, I suggest that the WCC reach out to around 30 to 50 people within the worker co-op community (at least 75% being actual worker members, rather than individuals or consultants) & use such a group as a sounding board for your plans going forward.

I welcome & I am grateful for the dedicated voluntary work of the WCC in putting the possibility of a new WCF on the agenda, but having been part of previous "great principle six" co-op networks, I am wary of stuff being rushed & not being clearly defined & not being financially viable.

There is an alternative strategy, that would be to push hard within CUK so that an established body takes worker co-ops seriously again.... or maybe the WCC has hit too many brick walls on this ?

Towards further co-operation

A luta continua