Recently in BDA Category

A quick plug if I may, for Don Grearson's book, USS Bermuda, which he self-published and released a couple of months ago. (Full disclosure, Don is a friend who I got to know quite well during my time in the UBP with his role as a Communications Consultant.)

I'm not quite through all 450 pages of the book yet, but I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in either history (Bermuda or WWII and Cold War) or Bermuda politics. (See Crombie's review, and excerpts here and here).

It's a very interesting look behind the scenes of the transition of the military bases/airport to Bermuda in the 1990s. You'll know plenty of the people and situations discussed in the book and probably learn a fair amount of new information as well.

What has struck me reading it is the parallels to the Bermuda of today in many regards. The departure of the US, Canada and UK presented a huge economic and social challenge to Bermuda's political leaders. This is also somewhat the emerging case today, with the global economy in transition, Bermuda's tax independence under attack and the continued decline of tourism intermingled with a politically unpopular independence agenda.

I apologise for the commercial (unsolicited and unpaid), but it's an entertaining and educational read for history buffs or political junkie - which is generally you nerds who read this site.

In fact, the book should be part of the Bermuda school curriculum because it covers a very important time in Bermuda's recent history.

On the topic of why Bermuda Democratic Alliance don't have the bda.bm domain, Sean Soares, a party member emailed me the following:

To be fair to BermudaNIC, the domain has been registered by a public person. Talks are ongoing to see if they will make it available. In the spirit of the name, We truly hope that if it is not released that it is used for good purposes.

I understand this to be true as well based on detailed information from multiple persons. However the lack of a WHOIS record suggests that it is not formally registered which is odd. My understanding is that the Registrar changed their position recently on giving out bda.bm, which they were, for lack of a better word, protecting, due to it's strong affiliation with the Bermuda national identity.

They had been approached recently by a private individual for it and felt they should offer it to them prior to the BDA political party's more recent attempt to register.

Actually, I think they probably should then go all the way back to Denis Pitcher who appears to be the earliest known individual who attempted to register the domain.

If I were the BDA I would register "thebda.bm" as a backup, because it's that little bit better than "thealliance.bm".

I should also add that I agree that no-one should be forced to give up a domain which they have properly registered.

This also illuminates the shortcomings around the BermudaNIC domain registration service. It's a horribly antiquated and bureaucratic process that doesn't even charge a nominal fee to own a .bm address.

It is somewhat surprising, although not unexpected, that the initial skirmish around the new party (other than trying to brand it the UBP), is about the name.

This hasn't been explicitly raised but is clear to anyone observing the language around the launch:

• the PLP's first statement referred to them as "Bermuda's DA", which is conspicuously intentional
• Jonathon at Catch a Fire (who's always up for a conspiracy) refuses to call them the BDA, opting also for Bermuda's DA with a sort of weird and clumsy argument about global parties using Democratic Alliance. But he's prone to overthinking issues.
• the name was previously used by Alex Outerbridge and
• and the party does not (yet or perhaps ever) have the domain bda.bm registered, although they do have bermudademocraticalliance.bm and thealliance.bm registered.

I'll take the last one last, but it's pretty clear that the PLP do not like the name and want to try not to let the BDA acronym stick.

I understand that, but it won't work because it's a good name, so good it had to be used; catchy and relevant. The election campaigns are right there, two words "Vote BDA". Short and sweet.

You've got to try and shut that down early. It is futile though.

It reminds me of the US, where some Republicans refuse to call the Democratic Party by that name. They call it the Democrat Party, which is a rather subtle dig that the party is not democratic. It really annoys some Democrats, but is just silly insider baseball.

There's also the issue that there was a previous attempt at a party called the Bermuda Democratic Alliance and therefore the new party shouldn't be able to use it. But that doesn't make much sense to me because the party never got off the ground and the name is a good one, was available and is fair game to be used.

The PLP would howl if people said "well, they're not progressive nor labour in any real sense, so we'll just call them "Party". Surely we're mature enough to respect the name an organisation chooses. If that's the name they want to go by then that's what they should be called.

Finally there's something that I looked up immediately when I heard last week what they were going to call themselves, which is the website.

The party conspicuously lacks the registration of the domain "bda.bm". They do have bermudademocraticalliance.bm and thealliance.bm, but there's no way they don't want, or didn't try to get that domain. Zero chance.

So why do they have the other two but not the logical bda.bm?

BermudaNIC, which is part of the Registry General, is a real relic in the way sites get registered: only businesses can register, you have to send a fax - yes a fax - on company letterhead, and the process takes days if you're lucky. (Plus, they don't charge. Government could make a few bucks off domain registrations.)

The process requires human approval versus the US process which is automated. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some games going on around the bda.bm domain.* [See update below.]

Look at Denis's experience when he tried to register it not too long ago:

One of the first ventures into attempting to form the party came in the form of trying to register www.bda.bm. It proved an interesting saga as I was made to jump through endless hoops in what was a clear attempt to find every means to not give me the domain. I was told I couldn't have the domain name unless I was a registered company or charity. So I went to the registrars office and looked up the requirements as well as the listings of the existing UBP and PLP. Turns out, they weren't registered. So I took this evidence back to plead my case only to be told I had to have a request printed on the letterhead and logo of the party. So I went off, composed this and returned only to then be told that I needed to have a party constitution. So I threw his together and returned only to be told that I needed to identify who the officers of my party was, who the treasurers were and that I needed to prove an established presence before I could get the domain name. I tried to plead my case that the foundation of the party I was trying to form was to be solidly based upon the website and that I couldn't possibly have directors and an established presence without attracting more individuals via a website. The manager/director there wouldn't budge and it became obvious that no matter what I did, the bar would be raised ever higher to prevent me.

If the BDA were given the other two domains there can be no logically consistent reason not to give them the other more obvious one. Hence their use of thealliance.bm, which is fine but not really what they wanted I'm sure, although it's not bad either.

If I were in the BDA, which I'm not, I'd repeat the name every chance I had. It's going to stick anyway, but this would help it along.

[*Update: I'm informed that bda.bm is already registered. Which would be odd because it doesn't show up in a domain registration WHOIS search as it should.]

Talk about looking for problems, but how can you make the following all-encompassing statement in the Throne Speech on a core issue of discrimination:

"The intention of the Human Rights Act to prevent discrimination against all classes of people must be fulfilled. Therefore the Act will be amended to ensure that no person is discriminated against in Bermuda."

And then less than 72 hours later say that "all" didn't mean "all", particularly the issue that everyone presumed you were talking about because it's been the hot topic for a few years now, culminating in a Parliamentary flame-out of epic proportions:

Today, Ms Butterfield told the media Mr. Butler had taken the issue to Cabinet earlier this year, but that it had been turned down. She said she did not know whether individual Cabinet members had been against the move, but only that the collective decision had been to reject it.

This is a cop-out, but also political strategy malpractice.

Firstly, why make such a grandiose statement in the Throne Speech when you didn't have to, and secondly why queue this up in your first post speech press conference?

Self-inflicted really. But it is a shining example of not letting the facts get in the way of your bold spin.

The PLP professes to be the party of civil rights, but on this core issue of discrimination they are chronically incapable of doing the right thing.

This is a basic human right. Make it happen.