Subject-specific thread: Fairest .uk release mechanism?

[Retired_Member38]

Exactly that's my point. So the "in use" classifier should be irrelevant in my opinion.

As should the 'charities only' thing being offered around. I don't see how you can realistically start making exceptions based on what was a perfectly legitimate use of a domain.

Some people might not like my (and various other peoples) commercial use of .org.uks - but that dislike goes both ways and I don't like their use of domains as parked. But I do accept that under the Nominet rules, their use of it was as legitimate as my own.


If we are going to start making exceptions and applying them to some people, then I want to go all in on that and apply lots of them that genuinely improve .uk as a place for UK internet sites.

So that would mean park the .co.uk, and you lose the .uk.

Any charity/tourist attraction could apply to be given their .uk equivalent, regardless of age or current extension.

I would give every single cityname.uk to an appropriate government or tourism department, regardless of who owns other extensions of it, or when they bought them.

Anyone with a legitimate public interest claim to a .uk, would be given it, irrespective of current domains, extensions or registration dates. They wouldn't even need to own a UK domain at all currently. This isn't a valid example as they own both, but if VisitScotland.com didn't own any UK domains at all... I would still give them visitscotland.uk based on a tourism need (official tourism site for Scotland).

 

[Edwin]

It's interesting that one of the biggest problems of V1 (there were many, hard to pick a winner) was seen to be the fact that Nominet was imposing a "use test" to pre-qualify rights to the equivalent .uk.

There was a pretty broad consensus at the time (when the "use" requirement would have excluded domainers' names) that "use" shouldn't be a criterion, and that viewpoint was fought for very strongly in the face-to-face meetings and elsewhere (on the basis that "use" has never factored into Nominet's processes before)

Now, when there is a risk that a few .co.uk names might go to the .org.uk or .me.uk owners based on a simple formula, suddenly there's a rush to set all sorts of novel "use" criteria to whittle those cases down?

Looks like opportunism to me!

 

[Retired_Member42]

(when the "use" requirement would have excluded domainers' names)

Sounds ideal

 

[Edwin]

BTW, it may be worth looking again at some of the comments raised by V1... Specifically those relating to the release mechanism, at least:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/SummaryofdirectukFeedback_1.pdf (p. 56-64)

http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/NomensaAnalysisFinal.pdf (p. 56-63)

The material in the above documents gives a real "feel" for the mood in other industries/sectors concerning the release mechanism, as well as various ideas that were floated to "fix" the system proposed by V1 (some of which might be applicable here too).

 

[Edwin]

Sounds ideal

Quite a few of the people present at the face to face sessions would have agreed with you. That's why it's important not to give them any grounds to say "wait a minute, you're only saying that because..."

 

[Retired_Member42]

When are the face to face sessions? I'll fly Monkey over to voice his concerns. Should make for an interesting afternoon.

 

[Rob_F]

The thing is, do I even have to? Clearly the site *is* a non profit one right now. With it being a non profit site, and the earliest dated, why shouldn't I win here?

"Right now" is correct. Non-profit since 23 May 2013. Very much commercial before then.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130401024551/http://www.paydayloans.org.uk/

Why the change of use?

- Rob

 

[Retired_Member38]

Because its my domain and I can do whatever I like with it?

 

[Stephen]

What will happen?

Thanks for starting the thread and I will be trying later to put the case for 100% pairing of .co.uk and .uk.

However something you have raised earlier on a another thread is that as Nominet are nailing its mast to "registration date" first
in .uk version 2.0 although we will have to see the full details,
the 100% pairing of .co.uk & .uk
or the .co.uk getting the .uk and acting as a separate tld
may not be possible if they win support,
as Nominet is unlikely to go for a different policy after the consultation,
they will either go with a modified version 2.0
or scrap .uk altogether if it is shown to have too many problems and not enough support from the right people.

Nominet will not go for a 3rd time launch with .uk?

 

[Rob_F]

Because its my domain and I can do whatever I like with it?

Hmm. OK.

I am sure your previous clients will be just delighted to be greeted by your new, non-profit "DoomsDay Loans" website.

- Rob

 

[Retired_Member42]

I think we should have a lottery for premium .uk keyword domains such as carinsurance.uk, paydayloans.uk etc where everyone here buys a £100 ticket and the proceeds are donated to Edwin.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Hmm. OK.

I am sure your previous clients will be just delighted to be greeted by your new, non-profit "DoomsDay Loans" website.

- Rob

I'm only here to help them

 

[Rob_F]

I'm only here to help them

I guess a bit of charity is "nice", once you have made millions off the back of them.

- Rob

 

[Retired_Member38]

I converted to Islam yesterday morning, so I gave up alcohol, drugs, predatory lending etc.

 

[murph]

modification of robs that you'll all probably hate

first refusal given to .co.uk registrants except where there is a site on the .org.uk and the .co.uk is parked.

.me.uk registrants have no rights.

+1

EDIT: Unfortunately, it's unworkable. A few crappy pages put together for the purpose of Adsense isn't much better than parked so shouldn't qualify... But then how/where do you draw the line at high enough quality of website to warrant needing the .uk

 

[websaway]

Because .uk would have less adverse effect on the org.uk but would signal the death knell for co.uk there is an argument that co.uk should have first refusal or a straight gift of .uk with no charge.

 

[viceroy]

It's interesting that one of the biggest problems of V1 (there were many, hard to pick a winner) was seen to be the fact that Nominet was imposing a "use test" to pre-qualify rights to the equivalent .uk.

There was a pretty broad consensus at the time (when the "use" requirement would have excluded domainers' names) that "use" shouldn't be a criterion, and that viewpoint was fought for very strongly in the face-to-face meetings and elsewhere (on the basis that "use" has never factored into Nominet's processes before)

Now, when there is a risk that a few .co.uk names might go to the .org.uk or .me.uk owners based on a simple formula, suddenly there's a rush to set all sorts of novel "use" criteria to whittle those cases down?

Looks like opportunism to me!

Fair enough, my previous post wasn't totally in line with my original view. I was against any 'use test' but it looks like there are really very few viable options at this point. I think that the last time round, Nominet got us to hone their proposal...

 

[Edwin]

I think that the last time round, Nominet got us to hone their proposal...

Isn't that the point of a consultation? It's not meant to produce a "yes/no" answer - a simple vote would have done that - but a synthesis of different views and opinions that can be turned into a workable plan.

 

[js1]

first refusal given to .co.uk registrants except where the .org.uk pre-dates the .co.uk and the registrant on record is a registered charity. .me.uk registrants have no rights.

- rob

+1

 

[Retired_Member38]

Can someone explain to me the reason why Charities that predate the .co.uk should get the .uk, but commercial sites shouldn't? Both are using their domains legitimately and within the rules.

If the answer is 'because it'll be better for the general public' then I can come up with dozens of rules and exceptions that are also very clearly going to fit that 'benefits the public' description, but are going to be extremely painful for domainers in general.