Nominet announces programme for evolving the .uk domain name space

[Stephen]

2 threads

Perhaps it would be more productive to have two separate threads?

One to strategise the best way to release .uk if it ends up going ahead. (no good covering our ears and shutting our eyes and pretending that it definitely won't)

The other to marshall a coherent, logical argument as to why it shouldn't, and to devise strategies to prevent it from doing so. For example, media outreach, approaches to MPs, etc. Much like V1.

At the moment, this thread has kind of ended up by default as a big bucket of posts trying to do both of the above at once - and neither very well (too much "cross-talk" between the two separate sets of ideas - oppose vs refine)

Good idea, hope Admin can do something about this, maybe on 1st July when the detail is available?

I think there should also be room for extra threads posing specific questions like your "Real World .uk" example.

 

[simondooner]

Sorry to bang on about Nominets Rules and the purpose of domain extensions but I am still confused.

I, and I suspect many other business owners have over the years made major investments in the .co.uk name space based on these Rules which include:

Appendix A - Domain SLD purpose​

co.uk - Commercial entities and purposes
me.uk - Personal names
org.uk - Not-for-profit entities​

If this statement regarding domain purpose, as some here have suggested is incorrect then why is it included in Nominets Rules? If it is incorrect then surely to include it in the Rules is misleading and many have been mislead.

 

[foz]

Sorry to bang on about Nominets Rules and the purpose of domain extensions but I am still confused.

I, and I suspect many other business owners have over the years made major investments in the .co.uk name same based on these Rules which include:

Appendix A - Domain SLD purpose​

co.uk - Commercial entities and purposes
me.uk - Personal names
org.uk - Not-for-profit entities​

If this statement regarding domain purpose, as some here have suggested is incorrect then why is it included in Nominets Rules? If it is incorrect then surely to include it in the Rules is misleading and many have been mislead.

Maybe these rules have become "guidelines" over the years, Nominet certainly doesn't enforce them to the letter.

 

[mojoco]

Sorry to bang on about Nominets Rules and the purpose of domain extensions but I am still confused.

I, and I suspect many other business owners have over the years made major investments in the .co.uk name space based on these Rules which include:

Appendix A - Domain SLD purpose​

co.uk - Commercial entities and purposes
me.uk - Personal names
org.uk - Not-for-profit entities​

If this statement regarding domain purpose, as some here have suggested is incorrect then why is it included in Nominets Rules? If it is incorrect then surely to include it in the Rules is misleading and many have been mislead.

If it acceptable for these rules to be ignored by Nominet, surely it is reasonable to ignore any or all other of Nominets rules.

 

[Stephen]

.nz 2 years

Not so. Conflicting parties had two years to sort it out amongst themselves, if no resolution, the domain would not be allowed to be registered at all, ever.

Thanks but in .nz Appendix B it looks like they are trying to help the situation get resolved with mediation:

It is the responsibility of the competing registrant seeking the second level registration to obtain the consent of the other competing registrants of that name. The DNC may make such inquiry as it thinks necessary to verify that consent has been given. The DNC will offer advice and information to the registrant if required and may also offer the use of a mediator to assist in the process.

Also with consoltation feedback, they may fine tune it so somebody wins based on some complex criteria?

 

[foz]

If it acceptable for these rules to be ignored by Nominet, surely it is reasonable to ignore any or all other of Nominets rules.

Such as?

 

[mojoco]

Such as?

None specifically, but any of their rules. I'm pointing out that Nominet can't expect some rules to be adhered to while allowing others to be blatantly ignored.

 

[foz]

Thanks but in .nz Appendix B it looks like they are trying to help the situation get resolved with mediation:

Also with consoltation feedback, they may fine tune it so somebody wins based on some complex criteria?

It's all still very vague as to what will be if at all. .nz should report back before Nominet v2, so that should be interesting.

 

[foz]

None specifically, but any of their rules. I'm pointing out that Nominet can't expect some rules to be adhered to while allowing others to be blatantly ignored.

What are the rules for .com & .org? Are they followed to the letter. Probably not.

 

[Stephen]

Nominet Rules

Sorry to bang on about Nominets Rules and the purpose of domain extensions but I am still confused.

I, and I suspect many other business owners have over the years made major investments in the .co.uk name space based on these Rules which include:

Appendix A - Domain SLD purpose​

co.uk - Commercial entities and purposes
me.uk - Personal names
org.uk - Not-for-profit entities​

If this statement regarding domain purpose, as some here have suggested is incorrect then why is it included in Nominets Rules? If it is incorrect then surely to include it in the Rules is misleading and many have been mislead.

I think both registrants of domains have been mislead and more importantly the consumers who use websites.

On page 59 posts #586 Edwin and #590 Stephen, I think may shed some light on the situation of the Nominet rules and their useage.

 

[mojoco]

What are the rules for .com & .org? Are they followed to the letter. Probably not.

Yeah good point.

 

[Skinner]

I'd buy into this idea, its kinda like a mni auction between people who already bought into it.

If .uk has to go ahead this idea would my ideal. This way I can either stump up the cash or I can protect my interest same for the other person(s) in each instance.

I'm not sure about never, I would like to think once 1 of the parties names drop the other party has a shot, or when both parties are gone all 3 names open up for future.

Not so. Conflicting parties had two years to sort it out amongst themselves, if no resolution, the domain would not be allowed to be registered at all, ever.

 

[Edwin]

I'd buy into this idea, its kinda like a mni auction between people who already bought into it.

If .uk has to go ahead this idea would my ideal. This way I can either stump up the cash or I can protect my interest same for the other person(s) in each instance.

I'm not sure about never, I would like to think once 1 of the parties names drop the other party has a shot, or when both parties are gone all 3 names open up for future.

Makes no sense, it's a recipe for blackmail. For example, the .me.uk/.org.uk owner (genuinely) has no interest, but has to be bought off with a hefty backhander to withdraw their "objection".

 

[Edwin]

Sorry to bang on about Nominets Rules and the purpose of domain extensions but I am still confused.

I, and I suspect many other business owners have over the years made major investments in the .co.uk name space based on these Rules which include:

Appendix A - Domain SLD purpose​

co.uk - Commercial entities and purposes
me.uk - Personal names
org.uk - Not-for-profit entities​

If this statement regarding domain purpose, as some here have suggested is incorrect then why is it included in Nominets Rules? If it is incorrect then surely to include it in the Rules is misleading and many have been mislead.

Why focus on that exclusively when further UP (i.e. before) on the SAME page, there is the text I referenced earlier guaranteeing no action will be taken with respect to the actual use being made of .org.uk names.

I'd understand the concern if we were talking about 2 separate documents, but the promised "get out of jail free" for .org.uk owners is right there in the same text (and in the main body, not the Appendix).

Like it or hate it, people can use .org.uk for any purpose, and under Nominet's own "Rules" document there is no "incorrect" way of using a .org.uk domain.

 

[Stephen]

not to late to change before 1st July?

Regarding the .me.uk, I have never rated as they never appeal to me and in real life, I have not seen them be used.

I don't like the idea of family brand business that employ's many people that has or will need an online UK presense losing out on .uk for a family tree website to the .me.uk owner.

Also I hope Nominet fine tunes it's rules about .me.uk to 2004 and that would take into account the 2 letter auction, fiasco thoerwise we will have the real threat of nominet being taken to court for 2 years and when it looses paying enourmous damages!!

They changed the version 1 .uk proposal in the first week, by changing you must have a UK address, when it was pointed out by a prominent Acorn member, that was illegal under EU law, I hope they sense and adjust for the .me.uk otherwise the real debate will sidlinned by many.

 

[Edwin]

Also I hope Nominet fine tunes it's rules about .me.uk to 2004 and that would take into account the 2 letter auction, fiasco thoerwise we will have the real threat of nominet being taken to court for 2 years and when it looses paying enourmous damages!!

I believe the best way to handle the allocation of the 2 letter names is to have a separate "EXCEPTIONS" section in V2 just for them.

In the entire history of the UK namespace, they're the only domains that were never released through the normal process, but at artificially inflated prices (that greatly benefitted Nominet and the Nominet Trust) so Nominet have all the "cover" they need (morally, legally, ethically, anything-else-ly) to draft an exception to cover them as a true "special case", and many would argue (myself included) the obligation to do so.

Keeps things tidy, and the main "allocation process" simple.

 

[philiporchard]

Agree 100% with both your points.

Hi Ed,

I thought you agreed that .co.uk owners should have opportunity for .uk first? Could be very damaging for UK businesses otherwise.

 

[Edwin]

Hi Ed,

I thought you agreed that .co.uk owners should have opportunity for .uk first? Could be very damaging for UK businesses otherwise.

No. You're mixing two things up. I argued against .uk by explaining the damage it would cause to UK businesses.

Later (not as in "later in time", but "later in the document") I said that IF it goes ahead, it should be done on an oldest registrant wins basis as that's the fairest mechanism and has already been successfully used in several other cctld transitions.

See http://www.mydomainnames.co.uk/pros-and-cons.html and the position paper document if you'd like a refresher

Note: I will of course need to refine that material once I get a chance to see the full V2 - a lot of it is irrelevant now. But the basic arguments remain true.

 

[viceroy]

This is going to happen anyway if some .org.uk are going to take precedence over the .co.uk reg - and it's going to be by direct competitors approaching unknowing .org.uk registrants. So some not-for-profits are going to be in for a windfall...

This wouldn't work because it wouldn't stop interested third parties with deep pockets approaching one, the other or even both and using that registrant as a proxy at the auction.

 

[Stephen]

Full Rules

Why focus on that exclusively when further UP (i.e. before) on the SAME page, there is the text I referenced earlier guaranteeing no action will be taken with respect to the actual use being made of .org.uk names.

I'd understand the concern if we were talking about 2 separate documents, but the promised "get out of jail free" for .org.uk owners is right there in the same text (and in the main body, not the Appendix).

Like it or hate it, people can use .org.uk for any purpose, and under Nominet's own "Rules" document there is no "incorrect" way of using a .org.uk domain.

I still think it is worth noting Nominet rules state re .org.uk's :

In the SLD Charter of the SLD Rules for the Open SLDs we do set out certain intentions regarding the class of applicant or use of registrations of the Domain Name which we assume you will comply with when applying for a registration of a Domain Name within an Open SLD.