Nominet announces programme for evolving the .uk domain name space

[GreyWing]

This is quite interesting as obviously there are a lot of generic phrases out there with different owners of each extension. In some niches all with competing sites. I'd genuinely like to know what the law says on this? I'm not trying to judge you in any way. There is nothing wrong in taking steps to ensure the longevity of your venture but purely from a personal standpoint. I've like to know what the grounds are? I'm assuming you'll take action against the .uk version passing off but on such a generic phrase I'm not sure how this would be possible? Especially as the current .org.uk has more trading history than your .co.uk? If it is something as simple as passing off can you not simply take action against the .org.uk now, claim their domain and be awarded the .uk anyway?

It wouldn't necessarily be the letters, it wouldn't necessarily be the platform (uk business platform) but put them both together and there is a case for misrepresentation either deliberate or not deliberate (required elements part 2 in link). Here is one aspect of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

When there are ten's of thousands of businesses questioning it with me as a class action.... things ain't so simple now. This will drag on for years, forgot domainers or businesses winning... wait till the lawyers get going and the EU lawyers arguing barriers to trade for EU businesses not allowed UK domains.

 

[Retired_Member42]

If your SEO model is working stick with it and don't worry about the .uk. Chances are they won't outrank you given your history and proven model and if they do try, given the fine line between positive and negative effects from SEO, they'll probably shoot themselves in the foot doing it.

 

[Retired_Member38]

If he's not made a mistake in 5-6 years then there is no problem, you must have what is an unassailable lead over a .uk who won't even be able to launch or start building links until next year. Your rankings are not going to be affected by a .uk launch in the slightest.

I can't understand how you could have a 6 year old site that was keeping 3 people in employment, that you would even be considering closing due to .uk. The .me.uk owner is almost certainly just some little guy with no money and no resources… throw a handful of money at him and make the problem go away. He might not even have heard of .uk so why not do it this week and nip it in the bud before its an issue?

 

[Skinner]

I hope you're right but I have grave doubts, and have seen what I expect to happen many times to others who have started on a .org.uk only for the .com or the .co.uk to plunder them.

Either way lotta people going without work already in cancelled projects and stalled projects, it will be interesting to hear how many other people have potential losses.

If your SEO model is working stick with it and don't worry about the .uk. Chances are they won't outrank you given your history and proven model and if they do try, given the fine line between positive and negative effects from SEO, they'll probably shoot themselves in the foot doing it.

edit: as has been said a few pages back, lotta people will be emailing people once its launched offering money, so they will very quickly learn the value, and someone with resources maybe the one to buy it from him. Its not really an issue of the .me.uk guy devving it.

Edit2: Look at the paydayloans, he's already getting offers to buy his .org.uk NOW, so how many emails could my .me.uk guy have had ?

 

[Retired_Member42]

So e-mail them before the launch and secure the domain? But as I say, I wouldn't be worried about a new site out ranking you regardless of the extension if you're established and have a working SEO model.

 

[Skinner]

I have emailed, all I know is 1 of the emails has been opened and a url was clicked (unique url) other than that no reply. I'll keep an eye on the whois but I wouldn't be surprised to see it change hands soon.

Time will tell if its the death knell or party horn I guess.

 

[foz]

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.

That's rich coming from something who is merely a "layer" in the insurance sector. What value do you add exactly?

 

[Edwin]

It's amazing how much one misses when one is off doing something as mundane as trying to catch a few zzzzzs

I think "Monkey" is being led astray by the myth of the "Domain Name Queue of One" which I blogged about a couple of years. I'll repost what I wrote below...

--------------


The Myth of the Domain Name “Queue of One”
by Edwin on June 8, 2011

We receive a lot of email from potential buyers on account of having 6,000+ domain names for sale. One misunderstanding comes back time and again, so it’s time to dispel the myth of the “queue of one” once and for all…

Paraphrased, the (flawed) logic goes something like this: “Hey, if you weren’t sitting on this domain name, we’d be able to register it. That’s not very fair.”

What the authors of these email fail to realise is that the most desirable domain names were taken years or even decades ago. It’s worth re-reading the previous sentence until it really sinks in!

In other words, they’re not actually second in line for the domain name at all. If it’s a commercially relevant term, it will have been checked for availability dozens, hundreds or even thousands of times by other parties since we first registered it. So even if WE didn’t own the domain in question, somebody else already would.

Naturally, it’s understandably more comforting to think “We missed it by that much!” rather than face the fact that you’re at the back of a queue of interested parties that stretches down the road and around the block.

In the offline world, nobody goes around looking at the prime commercial land at the heart of the business district of a large city thinking “If only XYZ developer hadn’t bought the land already, it would have been available for us.” No, every inch of usable space in every major city in the world already belongs to someone – and it’s an accepted fact of doing business that if you want that space, you’re going to have to pay the current owner market value (or more, if they’re not looking to sell) in order to get hold of it.

The domain name market is no different.

 

[Edwin]

Oh, and "domaining" is just one of three business lines I'm involved in. The other two both involve "real sites" to use Monkey's terms - about 50 of them at the moment, and counting. I've been building and monetising websites since early 1996. Even within domaining, .co.uk is only 65% of our portfolio.

Not that I thought his argument has even a tippy-toe to stand on - the blatantly transparent dislike of "domainers" made that clear - but you never know...

It's often said that you need to spend 10,000 hours doing something in order to become an expert. If you apply that definition, then I would definitely be an "expert" in domains. Any business that someone has put 10,000+ hours of WORK into over the years (without breaking the law - let's not get sidetracked with some ridiculous counter-suggestion like drug dealing - I'm anticipating here) is clearly a legitimate business!

Or did you think that the clouds parted, trumpets played, and our portfolio was gifted for free on a silver platter?

 

[timter51]

Just to side-step the current discussion which looks to be a combination of biterness, spitefulness and willy-waving (not by all I must add)...

Can I assume that most of you now have stopped any drop-catching of .uk domains where another .uk extension is already registered?

 

[Stephen]

Domainers + Business is better off with .co.uk and .uk 100% pairing

It's not "least unacceptable" to domainers. Domainers would benefit more from the ".co.uk automatically gets it" scenario. But that stiffs non-profits and others who have legitimate interests.

That is also true for business using .co.uk getting and pairing the .uk, they would also be better off.

• so no security issues of different owners of joebloggs.co.uk and joebloggs.uk
• no losing out as you didn't meet an artificial deadline
• no losing as you did not understand the significance of not owning the .uk
• no confusion as to what .uk and .co.uk stands for
• no lasting problems that it was a mistake to have different ownership

I believe it is better for .uk to be released, as it is moving the UK name space forward for international businesses, shows evolution and taps a trend,
but it must be done to minimize the effect on all stakeholders,
whether they understand domains are not, that is what Nominet should be concentrating on.

Unless Nominet produce an independent report on
"how many .org.uk domains loose out, the purpose of their sites and the proof that they are bothered they would not get the .uk"
which show the effect is larger than I would expect and those situations cannot be resolved
then I will continue to support 100% the release of .uk with 100% pairing of .co.uk and .uk.

 

[foz]

Can I assume that most of you now have stopped any drop-catching of .uk domains where another .uk extension is already registered?

Not for me. It's still worth it until the official word comes out on .uk. That will be early 2014.

 

[Stephen]

Domainers v Business view

But it is only least unacceptable to domainers because wins and losses balance themselves out over a portfolio..... members of the public have one domain, the loss of that domain name, or more correctly the arrival of a competitor on a superior business platform could mean end of business.

That's how I see it from the public's point of view.

Totally agree.

Most sensible quote I have seen on this thread to date, we just need to educate the businesses of these effects, so they can let Nominet know via the consultation process.

 

[Stephen]

Real World - when you look close!

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.....

The result of Edwin's "real world" thread where, very interesting (and thanks for doing it):

The Results
- Of the 899 .co.uk domain owners, 890 (99%) will be automatically eligible for the matching .uk.
- Of the 47 .org.uk domain owners, 40 (85%) will be automatically eligible for the matching .uk.
- The sole .me.uk owner won't get the .uk (no real surprise there).

The trouble is with stats it doesn't tell the whole story.

I have tried to look at the winners and losers in the sample
and how they would fair under the alternative 100% pairing of .co.uk and .uk.

• some of the .org.uk sites did not resolve at all
• 3 of the .org.uk sites had moved to .co.uk and the .org.uk was FTR
• the .me.uk is no longer used, either out of business or realized they needed a different tld for business
• the majority .org.uk sites that where actual businesses would not get the .uk under either method
• the larger .org.uk sites also owned the equivalent .co.uk
• the majority of the .org.uk had FTR equivalent .co.uk
• the majority of the .org.uk would be able to get the .uk under the pairing release method
• looking at those .org.uk sites that are truly no-profit that would not get the .uk, I don't think they would want it, as they made it clear about being non-profit to help and provide credibility to what they do on their websites

I have always thought that there will be some genuine .org.uk owners
that are non-profit that would loose out under .co.uk owners get .uk,
my view is find out how many and try to help them get the .co.uk and hence the .uk.

The alternative Nominet V2.0 is just bad for business and the UK namespace.

 

[Edwin]

Unless Nominet produce an independent report on
"how many .org.uk domains loose out, the purpose of their sites and the proof that they are bothered they would not get the .uk"
which show the effect is larger than I would expect and those situations cannot be resolved
then I will continue to support 100% the release of .uk with 100% pairing of .co.uk and .uk.

Surely the "purpose" of their site is irrelevant. If we expect Nominet not to bring a "use" test to allocating the domains, it's unfair to then turn around and say "ok, we won't check what you're using your domain for if it's a .co.uk, but if it's a .org.uk you will need to jump through all sorts of hoops to see if you qualify" given that since the very beginning, Nominet has enshrined in writing (baked into the text of the "Rules" governing domain registration) the fact that .org.uk non-commercial usage would not be enforced.

(and I say that as someone who has exactly 20 .org.uk, only 1 of which predates other extensions)

 

[websaway]

It is pointless to argue against my position paper by saying ".uk shouldn't go ahead". I think that too!

My position paper was/is intended to provide a "least unacceptable" way forward, should the attempts to stop it going ahead fail.

No Edwin the question was:

how does the following end game position of your proposals for .uk benefit the business community or the UK webspace.
(Ignoring the worst of two evils scenario that you are hooked on)


Post d day .uk
I will not register a co.uk without registering the equivalent .uk (probably have to go for the hyphen for both aswell to protect the position)
Additional costs for me but only the one site built.


If I just register the .uk or the co.uk then the very next day someone will register the one I have not got with a view to sell it to me at a future date and will park it listing it for sale, the more successful my site becomes the more the value of the alternative name rises.

How does that benefit the business community or the UK webspace ?

 

[Edwin]

I have always thought that there will be some genuine .org.uk owners
that are non-profit that would loose out under .co.uk owners get .uk,
my view is find out how many and try to help them get the .co.uk and hence the .uk.

"genuine" .org.uk owners is as dangerous a phrase as "legitimate .co.uk owners". It's applying one particular set of values as a "filter" because one or other group is artificially perceived as more worthy than another.

All .org.uk owners are "genuine" under Nominet's Rules. This has been the case all along, so anyone who bought a .org.uk has very specific expectations that go along it, one of which being "Nominet WILL NOT enforce the non-profit usage requirement".

 

[Stephen]

Debate the Big Issues

..Edwin is taking a constructive part in direct.uk - I think that I could name a few large portfolio holders that haven't added anything (positive or not) to the debate - let's take pot shots at them rather...

Confusion and the other risks (to the majority registrants, ie. the public & small businesses) highlighted at the first meetings are still not being addressed. It seems that v2 is to appease the vocal and get this through.

I agree totally with both statements, it is worth repeating your above statements with this post.

 

[Stephen]

Who losses?

Surely the "purpose" of their site is irrelevant. If we expect Nominet not to bring a "use" test to allocating the domains, it's unfair to then turn around and say "ok, we won't check what you're using your domain for if it's a .co.uk, but if it's a .org.uk you will need to jump through all sorts of hoops to see if you qualify" given that since the very beginning, Nominet has enshrined in writing (baked into the text of the "Rules" governing domain registration) the fact that .org.uk non-commercial usage would not be enforced.

(and I say that as someone who has exactly 20 .org.uk, only 1 of which predates other extensions)

I did not propose using usage as a test for .uk release, only that I looked at the websites of your "real world" test and tried to ascertain which mechanism of release (oldest or .co.uk grandfathering) would cause less damage, to the domain holders.

I think that it is not just the rules of Nominet, it has been made clear by Nominet that .org.uk are for non-profit organizations and so any member of the public visiting the sites would think those sites are independent, it is maybe immoral and possibly illegal to use that premise to make commercial gain from those .org.uk website visitors.

In the .NZ proposal they have used a test of sorts to determine who is more deserving.

(I own more .org.uk's than 20 and would obtain many .uk under current proposals)

 

[Stephen]

Which filter test?

"genuine" .org.uk owners is as dangerous a phrase as "legitimate .co.uk owners". It's applying one particular set of values as a "filter" because one or other group is artificially perceived as more worthy than another.

All .org.uk owners are "genuine" under Nominet's Rules. This has been the case all along, so anyone who bought a .org.uk has very specific expectations that go along it, one of which being "Nominet WILL NOT enforce the non-profit usage requirement".

You are advocating a filter of date. (if .uk went ahead)

I'm advocating a filter of purpose not useage.

• .uk is the new business extension for a new age
• .co.uk is for business
• .org.uk is for non-profit

The same space cannot be sold twice.

I have tried to look at which .org.uk owners would loose out if there was .co.uk grandfathering (which is best for UK business) and I have not seen any come forward that would want to use the .uk for non-profit reasons.