Sedo: LotterySyndicate.co.uk 4,599 GBP

[Edwin]

I don't see the problem with picking up .uk names that become available after the 5-year reservation period ends, so long as they're generic in nature (if they're clearly branded domains, then it's a cybersquatting-ransom play). The expiry of the 5-year lockup means they're all "first come first served" so there's nothing unethical in grabbing them at that point. Of course, it would be important to note in any communication with potential buyers that only the .uk was being sold, not the .co.uk!

However (separate but related discussion) there may well be a case for trying to put pressure on Nominet to extend the reservation period further or change the release mechanism in some way to protect businesses further if the take-up of .uk by existing .co.uk end-users continues to be anaemic. In other words, if the 5-year "drop" is going to be outlandishly massive, that's on Nominet's head for failing in its responsibility to educate existing domain owners (e.g. by shying away from communicating with them, as Nominet have up until now) and therefore grounds for some kind of concerted pressure to get Nominet moving. And this may need to be countered by some kind of letter writing/media/contact MPs effort - just like the V1 and V2 consultations were.

 

[humble pie]

so if LotterySyndicate.co.uk was reg'd 2004 it must have had .UK rights applied to it.. naughty mally

 

[Murray]

So in your opening email to end users where you are offering them to purchase a .co.uk name you have caught (but have no .uk domain as someone else caught that) you inform them that you only have the .co.uk and it doesn't come with the .uk rights? And you explicitly explain that to them at the fist instance?

Or do you just mention the domain you actually own and are offering for sale?

I don't email end users often, maybe once is a blue moon

In a scenario where someone contacted me and offered me £x,xxx for a co.uk I didn't have the corresponding .uk to, would I mention not having the .uk hmm probably not

 

[domainseller200]

I don't email end users often, maybe once is a blue moon

In a scenario where someone contacted me and offered me £x,xxx for a co.uk I didn't have the corresponding .uk to, would I mention not having the .uk hmm probably not

Thank you. I respect your honesty

 

[websaway]

I don't email end users often, maybe once is a blue moon

In a scenario where someone contacted me and offered me £x,xxx for a co.uk I didn't have the corresponding .uk to, would I mention not having the .uk hmm probably not

Why should you need to ?
Once they are separated they have no significance to each other , not any more than co.uk would have to me.uk

That's the way it is.

 

[domainseller200]

Why should you need to ?
Once they are separated they have no significance to each other , not any more than co.uk would have to me.uk

That's the way it is.

Using that example, if someone owned both domainname.co.uk and domainname.org.uk and someone contacted about the .co.uk, does that mean they should automatically give the other name to them as part of purchasing the .co.uk too OR should there be an added cost if they want the two?

 

[websaway]

Using that example, if someone owned both domainname.co.uk and domainname.org.uk and someone contacted about the .co.uk, does that mean they should automatically give the other name to them as part of purchasing the .co.uk too OR should there be an added cost if they want the two?

If your example is co.uk and org.uk
Any sale is negotiable.

 

[domainseller200]

At present if you register a currently unregistered .co.uk domain name (not one which is dropping) you don't automatically receive the rights to the corresponding .uk as ANYONE can register it and then sell it or use it.

Also at present if you catch a dropping .co.uk domain name you don't automatically receive the rights to the corresponding .uk as ANYONE can register / catch it also (which is exactly what is happening, and both catchers are selling off the names as two separate unlinked assets)

So why are people being so (possibly misplaced) moralistic about the buyer of a .co.uk domain name being automatically entitled to the rights to the corresponding .uk domain name?

You can't have it all ways, and whichever way your moral compass points, everyone is in the same position regardless of how you personally see one thing as being correct and another as being incorrect. The fact is you are all making money from selling domain names in ways you see as personally acceptable and suits your own agendas

 

[ian]

So why are people being so (possibly misplaced) moralistic about the buyer of a .co.uk domain name being automatically entitled to the rights to the corresponding .uk domain name?

...because on the assumption that at the time of negotiation or sale of the .co.uk, the .uk was assigned to the .co.uk and not already registered, it was part of the deal, whether the buyer was aware of not. If a concious effort was made to then register and keep the .uk, it breaches not just a morality code, but the legal position of the domain extension itself.

If Mally came forward and said he already registered the .uk, then fair enough, it comes down to morality only.

Anything that drops and is therefore cancelled, or hasn't been registered before is very different, as rights with the domain do not apply. I'd personally still sell them a pair where possible, but that is very different.

You do make a good point about domainers scooping up .uk's in 2019; I guess the moral compass will point towards .co.uk owners having had enough time to make a decision and purchase the .uk - but that largely depends how much effort Nominet put in to encouraging registrations prior to then.

 

[domainseller200]

...because on the assumption that at the time of negotiation or sale of the .co.uk, the .uk was assigned to the .co.uk and not already registered, it was part of the deal, whether the buyer was aware of not. If a concious effort was made to then register and keep the .uk, it breaches not just a morality code, but the legal position of the domain extension itself.

If Mally came forward and said he already registered the .uk, then fair enough, it comes down to morality only.

Anything that drops and is therefore cancelled, or hasn't been registered before is very different, as rights with the domain do not apply. I'd personally still sell them a pair where possible, but that is very different.

You do make a good point about domainers scooping up .uk's in 2019; I guess the moral compass will point towards .co.uk owners having had enough time to make a decision and purchase the .uk - but that largely depends how much effort Nominet put in to encouraging registrations prior to then.

So are you saying that if both the .co.uk and .uk were registered prior to contact being made, then the seller is (morally) correct in selling them both individually for potentially double the price for the two?

If that is the case, then it is nothing to do with people saying they believe they should be kept together at all times (to avoid confusion et al) and is nothing more than a smoke screen for their own agendas.

For the sake of clarity, I personally believe (and also practise) that the rights of the .uk are with the owner of the .co.uk under the terms as follows :

If an enquiry is made on a .co.uk name (and I haven't yet registered the .uk name) I will give them the option to purchase the .co.uk along with the rights to the .uk name. If they say they do not want the .uk name and ONLY want the .co.uk name, I make them aware that I will be retaining the rights and registering the .uk domain to myself prior to completing the sale. If they say they want both the .co.uk and the .uk I provide a price for each domain and also a price for the pair.

I believe that is a very fair position and I have been very clear with my intentions regarding both domains, I also state on the invoice in the case of only one of the names being purchased "The purchaser have waived their rights to the .uk domain name and therefore I retain those rights and will be registering the domain name myself upon receipt of cleared funds" The money then arrives in my account, I register the .uk domain name and then transfer the .co.uk name to them.

If anyone thinks the above is morally wrong then I am afraid you are in the wrong game and just not being honest with yourselves, as I am just following exactly what Nominet do and also the same as 99% of domainers do also - they just aren't as forthcoming as I am with being upfront about it.

2019 will be very interesting for sure and I can't wait to see how many moral compasses will be washed away amongst the sea of gold practically landing in their laps

I can hear it now "They had their chance, so tough luck to them as now it is a free for all" if people really did think it was morally wrong, then they would be educating people about it between now and 2019, however I suspect nobody is, and instead push the 'blame' on Nominet and the fact these people had 5 years to register them prior to them hoovering them up.

For those who still think that selling the .co.uk and retaining the .uk is morally wrong - Ignorance is no defence; neither now or in 2019.

 

[spiderspider]

Who would of thought that lotterysyndicate.co.uk would generate a 5 page thread, all about the sale of that name!

Well done on the sale!

 

[ian]

So are you saying that if both the .co.uk and .uk were registered prior to contact being made, then the seller is (morally) correct in selling them both individually for potentially double the price for the two?

Nope, not what I said at all, just your interpretation. I still feel that the two extensions should be sold as a pair, but that is my decision and is no more right or wrong than your position. My only issue is with a .uk being registered in between an agreement on the .co.uk being made and the subsequent transfer; unless of course this has been discussed with the buyer and they have wavered their right as you said...if they haven't, and weren't aware, then they are still entitled to the .uk under the right of registration rule.

Can't speak for Mally or what position he took, but I suspect if as you say you are being up front and offering the buyer the choice, that is fine, but if like others are doing and keeping stum, so they can register the .uk before transfer and retain, that is morally poor form. For an industry so heavily reliant on trust, this approach is disappointing, but as said, no idea what arrange Mally had.

 

[mat]

I have been thinking about this today and although at first I was quite adamant about the moral rule of automatically giving the .uk with the .co.uk if it has currently not been registered, there was something that challenged my thinking.

Many of our domain names are keyword type domain names (the type we would typically develop or sell) which through Nominets release of the .uk has effectively given us the opportunity to now have 2 of these domain names.

Now what got me thinking is the fact that many of us do not instantly register this extra domain name, as we know we have time to do this. Why register it now if you may wish to genuinely use/sell it in 2+ years time?

That then creates the predicament where if someone makes you an offer on the .co.uk, you may feel it only fair to register the .uk as you had always intended to. After all you are entitled to them both.

The fact is, it is a mess and everyone has to make the decision of what is best for THEM, but you also face really messing with another buyer which I would genuinely feel bad about.

 

[domainseller200]

Nope, not what I said at all, just your interpretation. I still feel that the two extensions should be sold as a pair, but that is my decision and is no more right or wrong than your position. My only issue is with a .uk being registered in between an agreement on the .co.uk being made and the subsequent transfer; unless of course this has been discussed with the buyer and they have wavered their right as you said...if they haven't, and weren't aware, then they are still entitled to the .uk under the right of registration rule.

Can't speak for Mally or what position he took, but I suspect if as you say you are being up front and offering the buyer the choice, that is fine, but if like others are doing and keeping stum, so they can register the .uk before transfer and retain, that is morally poor form. For an industry so heavily reliant on trust, this approach is disappointing, but as said, no idea what arrange Mally had.

It wasn't my interpretation at all; that is why I asked a question instead of saying "I assume..."

I agree with what you say also, not making them aware is morally wrong; however I don't think it is morally wrong to separate them and charge double so to speak, but too many people are dressing up the latter as the former to appear morally superior.

 

[ian]

I agree with what you say also, not making them aware is morally wrong; however I don't think it is morally wrong to separate them and charge double so to speak, but too many people are dressing up the latter as the former to appear morally superior.

Too many morals! Have no issue with asking the buyer if they want the .uk for £x amount more, or included within the price. Just not the tactic of keeping quiet, then registering the .uk before transfer. Putting morals aside, I'd suggest in that situation the buyer would have a strong legal challenge to have the .uk transferred, even if it wasn't specifically discussed.

I'm just a fan of keeping the pairing together, registered or not, whether they know or not; when selling, but I guess for some it may also come down to how much value they think the .uk will eventually have, if at all.

 

[DaveP]

It's not rocket science folks. It's simple, if at the time of an agreed sale the .co.uk has rights attached to the .uk then those rights are transferred along with the domain. The fact the .uk version of this domain was registered only 3 days prior to this thread being created highly suggests to me Mally already knew of the pending sale.

 

[domainseller200]

It's not rocket science folks. It's simple, if at the time of an agreed sale the .co.uk has rights attached to the .uk then those rights are transferred along with the domain. The fact the .uk version of this domain was registered only 3 days prior to this thread being created highly suggests to me Mally already knew of the pending sale.

And how do you know he didn't offer it to them and they didn't want it? People are far too quick to jump to conclusions and judge others.

 

[ian]

And how do you know he didn't offer it to them and they didn't want it? People are far too quick to jump to conclusions and judge others.

That is why I personally said we don't know for sure, but looking back, it would suggest that Mally did what we suspected is immoral:

http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/sold-...rysyndicate-co-uk-4-599-gbp-2.html#post530985

Interesting point of view that the buyer was buying the .co.uk, not the rights to the .uk when legally I suspect that is inaccurate if the .uk hadn't been registered at point of agreement/sale.

 

[domainseller200]

Too many morals! Have no issue with asking the buyer if they want the .uk for £x amount more, or included within the price. Just not the tactic of keeping quiet, then registering the .uk before transfer. Putting morals aside, I'd suggest in that situation the buyer would have a strong legal challenge to have the .uk transferred, even if it wasn't specifically discussed.

I'm just a fan of keeping the pairing together, registered or not, whether they know or not; when selling, but I guess for some it may also come down to how much value they think the .uk will eventually have, if at all.

Agreed

 

[domainseller200]

That is why I personally said we don't know for sure, but looking back, it would suggest that Mally did what we suspected is immoral:

http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/sold-...rysyndicate-co-uk-4-599-gbp-2.html#post530985

Interesting point of view that the buyer was buying the .co.uk, not the rights to the .uk when legally I suspect that is inaccurate if the .uk hadn't been registered at point of agreement/sale.

I see where you are coming from but Mally is factually correct also; does that mean the overall 'blame' is with Sedo for not clarifying either way?