Like for Like the only way for Nominet

[anthony]

So what would be your unbiased opinion, since you believe others are expressing their own biases?

It is simple to understand that had the .co.uk, .org.uk & .me.uk never existed, that it is patently clear that the oldest current registrant of those would almost certainly have gone straight for the .uk anyway. Those who argue that businesses somehow have greater rights than all others, or that somehow the .co.uk has a special right, are failing to argue their points even handedly.

It's a shame you will lose area.co.uk (which i doubt wasn't picked up for pocket money, as it was caught by Dean I recall) or marzipan.co.uk (which was originally registered to M&S since 1999 I recall too), etc , etc under the current proposals, but you almost certainly would never have got either of them anyway.

As for bias, I have none Edwin, I only have one .org.uk, which I have used for all my email accounts for over 10 years.

 

[Stephen]

history rewritten?

It is simple to understand that had the .co.uk, .org.uk & .me.uk never existed, that it is patently clear that the oldest current registrant of those would almost certainly have gone straight for the .uk anyway. Those who argue that businesses somehow have greater rights than all others, or that somehow the .co.uk has a special right, are failing to argue their points even handedly....

I don't see how Nominet can rewrite history with the oldest UK domain registration,
as if that is the case anybody who can prove they registered a domain a long time ago
and then sold it (might not have sold it if they knew .uk was coming and being retrospectively allocated)
or let it expire, should be given the chance to have the .uk they wold have registered,
as if history is going to be rewritten maybe it should be done properly?

Rather than the fudged solution Nominet have come up with.

Also there would be a lot of businesses had they known they would not end up with the prime UK tld by using .co.uk
would surely have developed with another domain name or extension.

 

[Edwin]

It is simple to understand that had the .co.uk, .org.uk & .me.uk never existed, that it is patently clear that the oldest current registrant of those would almost certainly have gone straight for the .uk anyway. Those who argue that businesses somehow have greater rights than all others, or that somehow the .co.uk has a special right, are failing to argue their points even handedly.

It's a shame you will lose area.co.uk (which i doubt wasn't picked up for pocket money, as it was caught by Dean I recall) or marzipan.co.uk (which was originally registered to M&S since 1999 I recall too), etc , etc under the current proposals, but you almost certainly would never have got either of them anyway.

As for bias, I have none Edwin, I only have one .org.uk, which I have used for all my email accounts for over 10 years.

Agree. Note that I did not argue for .co.uk wins (though I have put in my 2p's worth more times than I can count into debates about the specifics of how such a .co.uk wins scenario MIGHT operate - you don't have to argue for something in order to have an opinion about it)

 

[Edwin]

I don't see how Nominet can rewrite history with the oldest UK domain registration,
as if that is the case anybody who can prove they registered a domain a long time ago
and then sold it (might not have sold it if they knew .uk was coming and being retrospectively allocated)
or let it expire, should be given the chance to have the .uk they wold have registered,
as if history is going to be rewritten maybe it should be done properly?

Rather than the fudged solution Nominet have come up with.

Nominet didn't pull "oldest continuous registration wins" out of thin air - it was the approach adopted by South Korea, Colombia, Mexico, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, Guatemala and Peru in their own 3LD->2LD transitions (for completeness: China, Japan, the Philippines and Uganda went with "commercial registration wins")

In NONE of the above cases was any attempt made to "retrace ownership" beyond the current owner of the qualifying domain name - presumably because of the insane can of worms such an attempt would open. So why impose on Nominet an unworkable process that is significantly more complicated and fraught with peril than any other CCTLD registry has undertaken?

BTW isn't this about the two dozenth time we're having the exact same debate (.co.uk vs oldest registrant)? Given that it's in Nominet's hands now, not sure what (if anything) it's accomplishing...

 

[anthony]

I don't see how Nominet can rewrite history with the oldest UK domain registration,
as if that is the case anybody who can prove they registered a domain a long time ago
and then sold it (might not have sold it if they knew .uk was coming and being retrospectively allocated)
or let it expire, should be given the chance to have the .uk they wold have registered,
as if history is going to be rewritten maybe it should be done properly?

That's not the point I was trying to make, I meant oldest of the current registrants!

 

[Stephen]

rewriting history

That's not the point I was trying to make, I meant oldest of the current registrants!

Yes I know, sorry I was not trying to infer you were.
I was trying to make the point for anybody advocating rewriting history as the basis of being fair,
they should consider changing the process so it becomes truly fair as if .uk was there from the beginning.

It is not until you go to the extreme of an argument or strand of logic do you realize that what is suggested 'oldest first' is only a compromise on rewriting history and it should not be attempted in the first place, as it cannot possibly done properly and doesn't really offer a fair solution in my opinion.

I prefer to look at the current situation of a mature UK namespace, which is the 4th largest in the world and look at what the namespace will look like after each possible solution.

 

[Retired_Member38]

"I was trying to make the point for anybody advocating rewriting history as the basis of being fair, they should consider changing the process so it becomes truly fair as if .uk was there from the beginning."

How could you possibly do that? There could be multiple people legitimately for any single domain name saying "Had I known x, I would/wouldn't have done y"

 

[Stephen]

fundamental basis

"I was trying to make the point for anybody advocating rewriting history as the basis of being fair, they should consider changing the process so it becomes truly fair as if .uk was there from the beginning."

How could you possibly do that? There could be multiple people legitimately for any single domain name saying "Had I known x, I would/wouldn't have done y"

Exactly my point, it could not be done.

It all comes from the earlier post about rewriting history;

It is simple to understand that had the .co.uk, .org.uk & .me.uk never existed, that it is patently clear that the oldest current registrant of those would almost certainly have gone straight for the .uk anyway.

That is the fundamental basis for making 'oldest registrant' entitled to .uk and I don't believe you can rewrite history.

 

[Retired_Member39]

It'll depend how you frame the question (or how much info you give them in the first place)

Point out to them Hotmail.uk is going to be picked up by the .org.uk owner and you'll be able to get them to agree to .co.uk getting everything.

Point out that a variety of charities and tourist attractions are going to the lose the .uk equivelents to domainers/squatters if you give them to .co.uk owners... you'll easily be able to get a different answer.

Not meaning to be funny or have a go just interested. Would you gain from the aged domain proposal or the pairing proposal?.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Not meaning to be funny or have a go just interested. Would you gain from the aged domain proposal or the pairing proposal?.

I'll gain from any proposal that doesn't pair the domains indefinitely. Pairing them would definitely be the worst of the available/realistic options from my personal point of view.

Otherwise I'm going to win some and lose some no matter how they do it so I'm not overly worried, as long as they do it.

 

[Retired_Member39]

I'll gain from any proposal that doesn't pair the domains indefinitely. Pairing them would definitely be the worst of the available/realistic options from my personal point of view.

Otherwise I'm going to win some and lose some no matter how they do it so I'm not overly worried, as long as they do it.

Ok thanks for sharing. Tbh im getting splinters from sitting on the fence, but im probably about %55 in favour of .uk going ahead as long as it doesn't harm the majority of business's in the long term. 3 key points for me

1) .uk will harm business in 2014 but what about 2015-2020 and beyond?
2) killing the roots of the .uk domain uncertainty for good?
3) if nominet were so greedy to the core, why would they donate so much money to charity?, wouldnt a slice of that donation been included in bonuses etc?

 

[anthony]

...3) if nominet were so greedy to the core, why would they donate so much money to charity?, wouldnt a slice of that donation been included in bonuses etc?

Whenever the subject is tabled regarding the Nominet board being tempted to award themselves bonuses, this advert comes to mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc8vxx6J5Xw

I think we should call it 'The Haribo Effect!'