Nominet announces programme for evolving the .uk domain name space

[foz]

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.

When .uk is not required, I would say 10 is status quo. Forget about settling for less.

 

[Murray]

If a "perfect" solution is impossible

Realistically is the whole idea of direct.uk being scraped now impossible? not just asking you Edwin but everyone.

That would be the perfect solution to an unnecessary problem.

 

[Edwin]

When .uk is not required, I would say 10 is status quo. Forget about settling for less.

I agree that 10 is the status quo.

But (as I've said above and elsewhere) what if... shock, horror... we get it anyway, despite the opposition to the whole idea? (my position remains that no .uk at all is the best outcome - but I am more and more doubtful that this will happen)

Then is V2 the "least worst" way of getting it? Or is there a better way?

 

[foz]

Realistically is the whole idea of direct.uk being scraped now impossible? not just asking you Edwin but everyone.

That would be the perfect solution to an unnecessary problem.

Have always been of the mind "keep as is" or "the status quo".

 

[addz123]

Well assuming it's been decided direct.uk is going ahead, I'd have something like this:

a) give it directly .co.uk holder - simply because it's the most confusingly similar domain, it has the exact same services/features, in 90%-95% of cases it will be the oldest anyway, and .co.uk is the most popular extension (org.uk can always buy it off him anyway, just like .co.uk).

b) Give it directly to .co.uk holder, however there is a 6-12 month claim period for third level .uk sites. In order to win a claim, other site must show proof and reason for why they deserve it (e.g. website history, brand, website traffic, importance to their organisation). Once claim is won, a domain auction is held between the 3rd level uk owners.

 

[Retired_Member38]

"in 90%-95% of cases it will be the oldest anyway" - then why not just give it to the oldest? If someone went and bought a .co.uk knowing full well another person already owned another extension of it, why should they get the new version?

Unless you want £xxx reg fees, b) is going to be out of the question.

 

[Edwin]

a) give it directly .co.uk holder - simply because it's the most confusingly similar domain, it has the exact same services/features, in 90%-95% of cases it will be the oldest anyway, and .co.uk is the most popular extension (org.uk can always buy it off him anyway, just like .co.uk).

Why is that fairer than giving it to the oldest registrant? Nominet has never claimed that non-profits are "second class citizens". It's only the aftermarket that has decided to significantly undervalue .org.uk domains vs their .co.uk counterparts.

Wouldn't it be fairer to make it a 2.5-way comparison between the two "open" slds (.co.uk and .org.uk) and the very old .me.uk (that were issued in what has subsequently been acknowledged was a de-facto "open" manner at the time)

In other words, give .uk to the oldest of:
(.co.uk) OR (.org.uk) OR (.me.uk if older than 25 October 2004)

Personally, I don't think that "closed" slds such as .ac.uk, .sch.uk etc. should be included in this process - .uk is an "open" sld meant to complement the other "open" slds*.

*NOTE: The concept of .uk being "the domain for businesses" seems to have been dropped from V2, if the brief material we've seen so far is any guide.

As you say, in 95% of cases, the result of this formula will be that the .co.uk owner gets the domain anyway - but the "reason" for them getting it seems fairer.

 

[AssetDomains]

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)

Then I'd say Graeme's / Stephens proposal is the fairest

http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/uk-domain-name-consultations/116806-uk-alternative.html#post451024
http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/uk-domain-name-consultations/116806-uk-alternative.html#post451024

its the closest thing to remaining with the status quo there is.
has the added benefit of letting current owners decide if they want .uk they can switch if they don't continue using there .co.uk safe in the knowledge no one will come build on top of them.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Then I'd say Graeme's / Stephens proposal is the fairest

http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/uk-domain-name-consultations/116806-uk-alternative.html#post451024
http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/uk-domain-name-consultations/116806-uk-alternative.html#post451024

its the closest thing to remaining with the status quo there is.
has the added benefit of letting current owners decide if they want .uk they can switch if they don't continue using there .co.uk safe in the knowledge no one will come build on top of them.

How does it let you decide to stay on your .co.uk? Not much use when the time period runs out and they switch the domains off is it?

 

[AssetDomains]

How does it let you decide to stay on your .co.uk? Not much use when the time period runs out and they switch the domains off is it?

Later in the thread it was suggested do away with the time period situation solved

 

[Edwin]

I'm sorry, any talk of actually "switching off .co.uk" is commercially ridiculous.

You can't take something that 4,000,000 companies have spent £10s of billions branding, SEO-ing etc, and say "Now that's gone. Yep. Gone-gone. Finito. Sorry, chaps!" You would end up with the largest class action the world has ever seen.

It is so absurd that there's really not much point in debating it further. There is literally 0.00% chance of it happening, so the effort would be better spent trying to refine the various possibilities that might actually happen.

NOTE: I am only talking about scenarios where .co.uk is actually "retired from service" (regardless of the timeframes imposed to do so)

Microsoft knows all too well the dangers of the above. Windows XP has been end-of-lifed about half a dozen times over the years (Microsoft has had to back down on the threat an equal number of times) and it's STILL one of the most popular Windows OS on the planet even though it will be as full of security holes as a Swiss cheese come next spring. Why? Inertia. Simply put, companies have invested a fortune in making their software run on XP, and they're not willing/able to spend that money for a second time.

Research firm Gartner has predicted that more than 15% of medium and large enterprises will still have Windows XP running on at least 10% of their PCs after Microsoft support ends in April 2014.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/...ws-XP-end-of-life-could-face-compliance-risks

 

[Murray]

From a legal stand point would nominet be allowed to force people to move to .uk?

If someone has registered a .co.uk domain until 2023 and entered into a contract with nominet, surely they have some kind of protection, or no?.

 

[newguy]

Assuming that the original proposal was scrapped in part to due opposition to it, is it not somewhat strange to support any new proposal where the preferable choice is sticking with the status quo?

 

[addz123]

Why is that fairer than giving it to the oldest registrant? Nominet has never claimed that non-profits are "second class citizens". It's only the aftermarket that has decided to significantly undervalue .org.uk domains vs their .co.uk counterparts.

Wouldn't it be fairer to make it a 2.5-way comparison between the two "open" slds (.co.uk and .org.uk) and the very old .me.uk (that were issued in what has subsequently been acknowledged was a de-facto "open" manner at the time)

In other words, give .uk to the oldest of:
(.co.uk) OR (.org.uk) OR (.me.uk if older than 25 October 2004)

Personally, I don't think that "closed" slds such as .ac.uk, .sch.uk etc. should be included in this process - .uk is an "open" sld meant to complement the other "open" slds*.

*NOTE: The concept of .uk being "the domain for businesses" seems to have been dropped from V2, if the brief material we've seen so far is any guide.

As you say, in 95% of cases, the result of this formula will be that the .co.uk owner gets the domain anyway - but the "reason" for them getting it seems fairer.

First of all, even the "closed" slds argument is flawed. Nominet posted in public that it had warnings from local councils/governments that strategic domains like London.uk Sheffield.uk would be confusingly similar to the official Sheffield.gov.uk websites. Another reason not to release .uk in my opinion..

But I think the oldest registration date is no fairer. Age doesn't equate to use, brand, investment and costs etc. The co.uk owners knew they had the premium domain of use, especially with regards to commerce. If they saw .org.uk/me.uk as rivals they would have bought them out for the most part.

 

[foz]

Reminds me of the going digital tv campaign.

Analogue (.co.uk) will be shut off in three years time, be ready with your Digital (.uk).

I don't see it happening.

 

[Edwin]

Assuming that the original proposal was scrapped in part to due opposition to it, is it not somewhat strange to support any new proposal where the preferable choice is sticking with the status quo?

No. It's common sense.

If you go into a negotiation with only one position, and you have no intention of budging REGARDLESS of the likelihood of that outcome, then there are only two possibilities:
A) You get what you want
B) You get stuck with somebody else's outcome, which you've had no part in shaping

You can push for A) with all your might, but it makes sense to simultaneously work the process to shape B) in case A) doesn't happen.

Not to mention that the V1 proposal wasn't scrapped, it was modified and re-introduced.

 

[scooter]

It is so absurd that there's really not much point in debating it further.

NOTE: I am only talking about scenarios where .co.uk is actually "retired from service" (regardless of the timeframes imposed to do so)

Now there's an idea.
Give co.uk holders the .uk name, let co.uk become non registerable on the day of .uk launch and let the extention die as names are dropped through the years.





.

 

[anthony]

Now there's an idea.
Give co.uk holders the .uk name, let co.uk become non registerable on the day of .uk launch and let the extention die as names are dropped through the years.

Actually, to enhance that, let the successfully qualifying name be automatically redirected by Nominet to the .uk, and then rendered unavailable for ever more.

 

[Retired_Member42]

Actually, to enhance that, let the successfully qualifying name be automatically redirected by Nominet to the .uk, and then rendered unavailable for ever more.

I'm still not sure why .co.uk should be granted automatic rights to the extension? If I've got a .org.uk that I've had a site on for many years, regardless if it's commercial, non-profit or charity and someone caught the .co.uk version yesterday, does that give them more rights to the new extension than me? Based on what? The fact that it is perceived to be more valuable than the .org.uk? How is that fair?

 

[Edwin]

I'm still not sure why .co.uk should be granted automatic rights to the extension? If I've got a .org.uk that I've had a site on for many years, regardless if it's commercial, non-profit or charity and someone caught the .co.uk version yesterday, does that give them more rights to the new extension than me? Based on what? The fact that it is perceived to be more valuable than the .org.uk? How is that fair?

You're right. It's not fair. It's highly desirable if you're primarily a drop catcher, but it doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny, as you've just pointed out.