Nominet announces programme for evolving the .uk domain name space

[anthony]

Personally, I think the 2nd level serves purpose very well, you know what you are aiming at when you go there, I'd add further 2nd levels rather than reduce it down to a single pot, however, the general public just doesn't seem to get how domains were intended to work, just look at the number of UK only companies with a .com and the US seem to think .com is for them rather than using their country domains.

There is no benefit other than brand confusion if you don't own both .co.uk and .uk and shed loads of cash in the bank of a not for profit registry that is already cash rich if you do register the .co.uk and .uk

Perhaps Nominet ought to become for profit and convert us members into shareholders so we can all benefit from this cash windfall

The problem is that Nominet has already been hijacked, and the root-and-branch membership have been rendered pretty much powerless over the years, something they have to share the blame for because of ineffective action in the past. Barring a huge, almost devastating matter coming to light, it is unlikely anyone will be able to muster the wherewithal to unpick the setup as it now stands.

 

[scooter]

Even if you kept .co.uk forwarding forever... I think this plan fails on the issue that this is a clear revenue generation exercise from Nominet. The only way that gravy train continues is if another extension runs alongside .co.uk.

Personally I think its going to be pointless tabling any sort of suggestion that involves this. Its never going to happen - you would be better finding a 'least worst' solution that involves them running side by side, and push for that instead. Nominet staff bonuses need to be paid.

This is EXACTLY why the issue should be forced. To expose Nominet for what their ultimate goal is. To generate more revenue. Nothing else.

They are meant to represent UK business on the world wide web. They should have UK business at heart only and always. Any changes they make should be for the benefit of UK business. Nothing else.

I ask you....
What UK business operating within the co.uk commercial namespace is going to welcome a new level commercial namespace being opened up? I think you will find it is zero. There is NO benefit to them.

If they are hell bent on opening, then close the commercial namespace that already resides to any newcomers and keep the equilibrium.

There is no gain (other than financial to Nominet) to have 2 competing commercial namespaces.


Grant is right:
the most basic thing that needs challenging is the validity of Nominets new main reason to introduce .uk in the first place.




.

 

[anthony]

...Grant is right:
the most basic thing that needs challenging is the validity of Nominets new main reason to introduce .uk in the first place.

I've pointed this out before, I'm not sure Nominet actually has the legal right to roll out .uk, as it was never founded on that basis, which stems only from .uk sub domains managed by the UK Naming Committee. Authority for coordinating and administering the co.uk sub-domain was delegated to the UK Naming Committee made up of three commercial and two non-commercial Internet Access Providers. However, the Joint Network Team, which subsequently evolved into the UK Education and Research Networking Association (UKERNA), maintained a right of veto over decisions reached by this committee. Nominet evolved from the committee, which still to this day has no control over .ac.uk.

Any decision which may affect the educational establishments of the UK in any way whatsoever should be referred to Parlaiment.

 

[Retired_Member38]

This is EXACTLY why the issue should be forced. To expose Nominet for what their ultimate goal is. To generate more revenue. Nothing else.

They are meant to represent UK business on the world wide web. They should have UK business at heart only and always. Any changes they make should be for the benefit of UK business. Nothing else.

Okay well you go campaign against it then. Its obviously going to launch so your campaign will be a complete waste and time. You need to pick and choose your battles and imho you've lost this one before it begun so why bother? Spending your time pushing a least worst solution makes more sense.

I ask you....
What UK business operating within the co.uk commercial namespace is going to welcome a new level commercial namespace being opened up? I think you will find it is zero. There is NO benefit to them.

But you could say go ask a bunch of high street shop owners 'do you want a new out of town retail park with free parking to get planning permission?'. They're all going to say no because it suits their own financial position. And just like domains, they might have had the 'best' location when they set up... but things move on.

You can't really only ask a group of people who are going to be negatively affected if they want something. That answer is already a forgone conclusion. What you need to be asking is 'is this plan good for business in general?'

There are some .uk domains that if I could get my hands on them I'd be perfectly willing to invest £200-500k in a new business surrounding them. So more jobs created, and more tax paid.

I think all the doom and gloom for current .co.uk owners is mostly just self serving nonsense from a bunch of domainers. And to be realistic... domainers shouldn't be given any favours here or have any real say in things. Real businesses should take priority. Its not going to be a disaster for the tiny % of businesses who end up not getting the equivalent .uk domain. Their customers will find their current sites just fine.

 

[Jump]

I support the new central criterion: oldest reg secures first right of refusal. Providing Kevin Murphy's Eleanor Bradley quote is consistent with the actual plan when it is released:

“The clock on registration period is reset to the date of the current registration if the domain has ever dropped before, but not if it’s been transferred between registrants".

The power of this, from Nominet's perspectuve, tactically in terms of its potential to get through all the noise (comment period) and actually get up, is it's simplicity. I think it is quite ingenious.

The absence of any auction mechanism is a very big positive; the new proposal lets the market sort it out (as auctions would have to a large degree), only retrospectively.

Not perfect. Some will be worse off. Some hurt. Overall, I support it.

I concede I only took that position after checking all my most valuable and/or strategic names.

 

[Retired_Member42]

But Nominet advertise .org.uk as intended for non-profit organisations. So I come along wanting a domain for my commercial venture, drop £100k on it and a further £100k promoting it for 2 years. Then I get an e-mail, "Sorry son, the .org.uk owner is getting yourcompany.uk as they've had it for longer. We realise we told you .org.uk was intended for non-profit but guess what, we lied, you should have bought that shit up!"

 

[Retired_Member38]

I think they should go on oldest registration first. I would prefer they done a fairness test and gave it to the most deserving but clearly that won't work so oldest registration appears to be the next best thing.

So in this first stage it would go the oldest registrant. If you have a real business on your site I would make the fee £50 for the first year. If you don't have a real business on it, you can still have the domain but the price is £500 in the first year. I would set the bar very low on the proof of it being a real business. There shouldn't be any major disputes here as it wouldn't affect who got the domain, only how much they paid for it. If there was any sort of reasonable dispute here, then give them it for £50 rather than digging deeper into it. Obviously people with parked domains or 'buy my site' pages would be paying the £500.

In the next stage I'd let people put their name down for any domain that wasn't already taken. If there is more than one applicant for a domain, its a random draw and the winner pays the £5. If someone was entitled to the domain in the first stage but didn't want to pay £50 or £500, they could enter the draw like everyone else.

At least this would ensure domains end up getting used. Can anyone put forward a suitable argument as to why people who've sat on thousands of .co.uk's, should be gifted the chance to do the same with .uk's? How exactly is that good for UK business?

 

[Retired_Member42]

I think the fairest thing to do ditch me.uk from the whole oldest first thing altogether. It should have stayed for personal purposes in the first place.

Secondly, I'd award .uk to the oldest first, either .co.uk or .org.uk

If the .org.uk had a legitimate use for the domain, so be it, let them get on with it. If they do want to sell, they can only sell to the owner of the .co.uk. They can agree whatever price they like. Either the oldest owner sits on it or the .co.uk owners who REALLY want it can negotiate a deal with the .org.uk owner with no risk of the price being hiked up by other interested parties.

This will allow all domainers to get their .uk extensions, allow .org.uk owners to legitimately use there domains and give the .co.uk owners a fair attempt to secure the .uk version of their domain for a fair price if the .org.uk owner does not intend to use it.

Sure some .co.uk owners might offer peanuts to the .org.uk owner but the .org.uk owner can either use the domain or get the money being offered to them as opposed to getting lucky and playing 20 companies who want domain.uk off against each other.

 

[Edwin]

At least this would ensure domains end up getting used. Can anyone put forward a suitable argument as to why people who've sat on thousands of .co.uk's, should be gifted the chance to do the same with .uk's? How exactly is that good for UK business?

It's BECAUSE they've sat on thousands of .co.uk's for years/decades. Being able to "sit" on them isn't a right that's granted free, you know.

So in order to be in prime position for "thousands" (in your example) of .uk names, they're going to have been very early/heavy investors in the market. You've publicly announced that you've invested a lot of money in certain names (presumably because you expected a good return from them) so why should this be a surprise? Why shouldn't their investment be rewarded?

You can't simply say "Well, I've had a good think and here's how the fairest release mechanism would work... Oops, I just noticed that a by-product is that this small group of people I don't think much of will benefit from it too, having played by EXACTLY the same rules as everyone else. Oh dear, oh dear, I'd better make up a special bonus rule just to stiff them and make sure they get nothing."

 

[Retired_Member38]

I'm not saying I'm setting out to stiff this group of people. I'm saying they add zero value to proceedings, so lets do the launch in a way that benefits UK business, rather than a small number of people.

You wouldn't lose the .co.uk's you already had, you would be free to keep sitting on them as long as you liked.

 

[Skinner]

Would you agree that I (as joe public not a domainer) should be able to dictate I am more entitled to monkey.uk than you because you invested in a .co.uk, not .uk and would be sitting on 1 of the domains if it was awarded to you ?

So what if you invested money in the .co.uk and built a business, domainers invested money in .co.uk's and built a business, so where do you draw the line ?

Can anyone put forward a suitable argument as to why people who've sat on thousands of .co.uk's, should be gifted the chance to do the same with .uk's? How exactly is that good for UK business?

 

[Edwin]

I'm not saying I'm setting out to stiff this group of people. I'm saying they add zero value to proceedings, so lets do the launch in a way that benefits UK business, rather than a small number of people.

And I'm saying your assertion regarding domain investors has absolutely no basis in reality.

Did you see my thread about a real cross-sectional sample of businesses? Using Nominet's proposed V2 release mechanism, 99% of them would get the matching .uk.

In my book, 99% has never been "a small number". It's a landslide, an almost total majority.

And that's the rub, isn't it? The same formula that rewards (across a test sample) 99% of the sample base made up of actual businesses also rewards early investors who are into the UK namespace for 6/7 figures or more. And for some reason that just sticks in your craw?

 

[Retired_Member38]

Would you agree that I (as joe public not a domainer) should be able to dictate I am more entitled to monkey.uk than you because you invested in a .co.uk, not .uk and would be sitting on 1 of the domains if it was awarded to you ?

So what if you invested money in the .co.uk and built a business, domainers invested money in .co.uk's and built a business, so where do you draw the line ?

Not sure what you mean. Why would you be more entitled to Monkey.uk? If you had another variant of the domain that predated mines, then sure you should be able to have it. If I then want it badly enough I'll buy it from you.

 

[Retired_Member38]

And I'm saying your assertion regarding domain investors has absolutely no basis in reality.

Did you see my thread about a real cross-sectional sample of businesses? Using Nominet's proposed V2 release mechanism, 99% of them would get the matching .uk.

In my book, 99% has never been "a small number". It's a landslide, an almost total majority.

By small number I was referring to domain portfolio owners. Clearly they'd lose out in what I proposed. But tough luck for them, they have a busted business model and it would be significantly better for UK business if they ate a big loss here and the domains were distributed in a way that actually encouraged investment and employment creation.

 

[Edwin]

By small number I was referring to domain portfolio owners. Clearly they'd lose out in what I proposed. But tough luck for them, they have a busted business model and it would be significantly better for UK business if they ate a big loss here and the domains were distributed in a way that actually encouraged investment and employment creation.

Your proposal made no sense (it still doesn't after I re-read it) because you're saying "one rule for businesses and a completely different rule for domain investors" and there is no rational basis for making that distinction beyond the fact that YOU PERSONALLY don't particularly like the domaining business model.

(Bonus clue: a domain-oriented forum is probably the worst possible place to make such an assertion)

 

[Retired_Member38]

I'm not saying its because I don't personally like them. I'm saying because its harmful for UK business for you to sit on another 3000 .uk domains, when they could have went to people who have a legitimate use for them.

I know you think parking them is a legitimate use... but any reasonable (i.e. non domaining person) would probably side with me in that someone who was going to build a business, pay tax, employee people etc etc would be a far better use of that domain in the grand scheme of things.

(yes, obviously I know that proposal wasn't going to be well received on acorn domains, the clue was in the name after all )

 

[julian]

What's the difference between buying land in the real world and doing nothing with it and buying a domain and doing nothing with it.

If I invest in a 20 acre field which could be prime real-estate and don't want to develop on it until the times right why is that a problem.

Is your argument that you think you deserve to have that land because you would 'do something' with it?

I'm not saying its because I don't personally like them. I'm saying because its harmful for UK business for you to sit on another 3000 .uk domains, when they could have went to people who have a legitimate use for them.

I know you think parking them is a legitimate use... but any reasonable (i.e. non domaining person) would probably side with me in that someone who was going to build a business, pay tax, employee people etc etc would be a far better use of that domain in the grand scheme of things.

(yes, obviously I know that proposal wasn't going to be well received on acorn domains, the clue was in the name after all )

 

[Retired_Member38]

If I invest in a 20 acre field which could be prime real-estate and don't want to develop on it until the times right why is that a problem.

No real problem, but if you and too many other people do similar then it causes a problem when there is no land to build new houses, schools or businesses on. Its not ideal, but in that situation it might need the government to step in and deal with it, to the detriment of a small number of people and to the benefit of everyone else.

 

[Retired_Member42]

If you pay for the land it should be yours to do what you want with. If a third party is handing over the land for free it should be given to someone who would make use of it in a positive sense. Not simply turn what is effectively a gift into profit at the expense of another party.

What's the difference between buying land in the real world and doing nothing with it and buying a domain and doing nothing with it.

If I invest in a 20 acre field which could be prime real-estate and don't want to develop on it until the times right why is that a problem.

Is your argument that you think you deserve to have that land because you would 'do something' with it?

 

[Retired_Member38]

Julian would this not be fairer comparison.

Lets say you have a 20 acre field that you can build on. There is 20 acres nearby that you don't own, but its green belt land… nobody can build on it.

You've owned your 20 acres for the last 10 years and you've over priced it to the point nobody can realistically buy it. Thats fine, its your land and you can what you like for it.

Too many people are hoarding land and/or the government just decide to raise some revenue. So they say you can now build on green belt land, and they give this 20 acres away cheaply to someone. Maybe if you developed or sold your land in the first place they wouldn't have had to do that. But now that they have, its devalued your own land a little as its next door and you're no longer in such a strong position. But you still own your plot and can do what you please with it.

You certainly shouldn't be given any of the new 20 acres, should you?