Nominet announces programme for evolving the .uk domain name space

[scooter]

They want more sites being built so they need them as separate domains. And the number 1 aim is more revenue - so they need 2 reg fees.

Here comes the business confusion. joebloggs.co.uk/joebloggs.uk

By dropping the co.uk would eradicate this.

Revenue:
By doubling their prices they double their income.



just a thought....



.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Doubling the price of a single consolidated domain would make up for it in the short term yes. But the same would be achieved by doubling the .co.uk reg fee and scrapping .uk altogether, and generating almost zero complaints in the process.

Having two domains is clearly more profitable in the long run.... it might launch at a fiver but they can increase the price at will later.

 

[TinkyWinky]

Having two domains is clearly more profitable in the long run....

Not if they come under a number of class actions and then are forced to pay out as well as scrap the ridiculous idea of a example.uk domain!

 

[websaway]

Not if they come under a number of class actions and then are forced to pay out as well as scrap the ridiculous idea of a example.uk domain!

I think they have snookered themselves under the new proposals because, theoretically all UK domains that are currently registered will be awarded a .uk so effectively no new domains are really in existance.
All new domains registered will be encouraged to register the equivalent .uk so no more new names that would not have been registered anyway.

There are obvious arguments to this scenario but I'm not sure that nominets model will stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Many people will pass on registering a .uk they are entitled to, and someone will register it on the open market.

Many people will buy one they are entitled to as oldest registrant, purely to sell it on.

Once launched fully, many people will register a free to reg .co.uk or .uk, without buying the other.

So there will be plenty new domains in existence.

 

[websaway]

Many people will pass on registering a .uk they are entitled to, and someone will register it on the open market.

Many people will buy one they are entitled to as oldest registrant, purely to sell it on.

Once launched fully, many people will register a free to reg .co.uk or .uk, without buying the other.

So there will be plenty new domains in existence.

That's pure conjecture.
The model requires more than conjecture to stand up.
That's the point I am making.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Its not conjecture, its common sense. There can't be any other realistic outcome than that happening.

 

[addz123]

I get the feeling if this proposal goes through then it will be a 3-way auction.

Having thought about this a little more however, I'm even more worried about a 3-way auction between .org.uk/co.uk/me.uk then the grandfather rights in the current proposal.

What scares me is if it's turned into an auction, you're just going to get 1000s of domainers investing in .org.uk's/me.uk's getting ready to bid on the .uk domain. It will be the equivalent of paying the $185k application fee to participate in new gTLD auctions. There's nothing stopping one domainer purchasing 1000s new .me.uk's and participating in premium .uk auctions, possibly even holding the .co.uk owner to ransom.

So, although I'm 100% against .uk, if it HAD to go through I think it should avoid any auction process altogether and either go directly to .co.uk owner or oldest domain registration. Anything that involves an auction is unlikely to benefit anyone.

While an argument about "what's fair" is relevant, I don't think Nominet could ever process 10 million .co.uk/.uk claims manually as someone else mentioned above.

The fact is, if Nominet is committed to supporting their existing third level domain customers then they simply can't bring .uk out - it's a competing product for everyone, and there is no fair/effective way to do it.

Call it a new, stand-a-lone product if you want, but even a 7 yr old would realise .uk directly competes and creates confusion with .co.uk/.org.uk and me.uk.

 

[Retired_Member38]

How about an auction with a cutoff date that precludes anyone buying .me.uk auction entry tickets?

 

[websaway]

Its not conjecture, its common sense. There can't be any other realistic outcome than that happening.

I fully appreciate what you are thinking but the point I am making is.
For such a massive change to occur it has to stand up to scrutiny, there must be proven benefits of the changes, the first proposal was security and trade mark issues. On this new proposal it can be argued that there is no, or may be no undisputable benefit. So how do they argue for it's introduction, how do they get the government and the media and Joe bloggs to go along with what they want.

The rules as proposed mean that what you say will happen is conjecture, the rules encourage current uk domains and new .uk domains to be held by the same owners.

 

[addz123]

How about an auction with a cutoff date that precludes anyone buying .me.uk auction entry tickets?

Impossible for them to monitor. You can buy domains and just keep the same who.is.

 

[scooter]

the same would be achieved by doubling the .co.uk reg fee and scrapping .uk altogether, and generating almost zero complaints in the process.

They want .uk so let them introduce it, let co.uk die and they will also have almost zero complaints in the process.

I'm with others on this. It is not required, is an exercise in greed and should not go ahead. It is commercial blackmail.

They quote:
Combining a shorter suffix with the trust of the ‘.uk’ brand will offer a wider choice for both existing .uk registrants and the millions of consumers and businesses who are not yet online, and now want their own online space

Why would existing customers want a wider choice? They already have their business on the web with the "trusted" co.uk

And by offering another level to the millions of customers yet to come, will only bring confusion by the millions

joebloggs.co.uk/joebloggs.uk


By dropping co.uk and going with .uk brings zero confusion for the years to come.

I cannot see any existing business wanting this as they have additional expense with no gain.

I cannot see any future company wanting this as they have additional expense with no gain. (they need to secure both)





.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Impossible for them to monitor. You can buy domains and just keep the same who.is.

Who buys domain names and leaves the whois in someone else's name? Wouldn't that mean they could just take the domain back?

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

I get the feeling if this proposal goes through then it will be a 3-way auction.

Having thought about this a little more however, I'm even more worried about a 3-way auction between .org.uk/co.uk/me.uk then the grandfather rights in the current proposal.

There's a real irony here. The V1 proposal included a 3-way auction (after TM holders had filled their boots).

It was roundly derided as unfair, unworkable etc. on a number of grounds, but one of the biggest issues was the proposed auction mechanism.

Now there's a new version that's much fairer (it may not be perfect - and that's what the consultation is for) but it is absolutely for-sure better than V1, yet because it doesn't tick every single box the solution is... auctions?

There's a real sense of spinning in circles!

 

[addz123]

Who buys domain names and leaves the whois in someone else's name? Wouldn't that mean they could just take the domain back?

You can transfer UK domains in Goddady and keep the who.is.

And the point I'm making is it's not hard to keep the who.is the same for the sake of .uk auction.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

While I await the full proposal as eagerly as everyone else (without that, we're all swatting at shadows) one general word of caution: be careful what you wish for...

If a "perfect" solution is impossible (which, given all the mutually conflicting interest groups, seems all-but-certain) then at some point one needs to say "Ok, I can see that this isn't perfect, but it's realistically as good as it's likely to get" and grudgingly back that particular outcome. Failing that, there's a real risk of opening the door again to something much worse.

What I'm saying is if, at that point, the objection is "well, there are still XYZ flaws" that's a valid objection, but it's worth first considering if there is ANY plan with fewer flaws. If not, and if the plan being presented is the "least worst", then surely it's better to support it than to move to an even worse one.

In other words, if "10" represents an unattainable ideal solution and the plan on the table rates an "8", then if there is no other feasible plan that would ever rate above an "8", it's worth supporting the plan worth "8".

The above applies to ANY proposal/counter-proposal - not necessarily just to Nominet's V2.

 

[fozfoz is verified member.]

Auctions are not fair. They reward entities with the deepest pockets.

Another financial boost for Nominet too.

 

[addz123]

There's a real irony here. The V1 proposal included a 3-way auction (after TM holders had filled their boots).

It was roundly derided as unfair, unworkable etc. on a number of grounds, but one of the biggest issues was the proposed auction mechanism.

Now there's a new version that's much fairer (it may not be perfect - and that's what the consultation is for) but it is absolutely for-sure better than V1, yet because it doesn't tick every single box the solution is... auctions?

There's a real sense of spinning in circles!

How is it spinning in circles?

V1 proposal was unfair.

V2 proposal is fairer but still unfair and flawed in some 5-10% of instances.

The fact there is no prefect solution is why .uk shouldn't happen.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

V2 proposal is fairer but still unfair and flawed in some 5-10% of instances.

The fact there is no prefect solution is why .uk shouldn't happen.

Ok, I accept that.

Now let's take the next step.

What if the .uk WILL happen?

Then is V2 the "fairest" way of implementing .uk? (NOTE: I fully acknowledge that not having it at all is fairer, but that's off the table once Nominet decide 100% to press ahead)

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

Auctions are not fair. They reward entities with the deepest pockets.

Another financial boost for Nominet too.

Correct. That point was made very eloquently and very clearly by numerous parties during the V1 consultation phase. They potentially represent £billions for Nominet, while they are a flawed release mechanism.