Subject-specific thread: Fairest .uk release mechanism?

[tifosi]

Possible addition to proposal. Oldest of .org.uk & .co.uk has 6month option as suggested in v2. But, where .co.uk is registered & not oldest this has a right of veto on the .org.uk getting it. Then goes to arbitration panel (mini-drs) where .co.uk has to show reasoning.

Likely to provide a lot of additional work so probably not totally viable. The registered charity as mentioned seems reasonable.

No auctions and no .me.uk.

 

[Retired_Member38]

On what basis would the .co.uk be able to veto an older .org.uk taking the .uk under this plan?

 

[tifosi]

On what basis would the .co.uk be able to veto an older .org.uk taking the .uk under this plan?

Open to suggestions on that one. Bit of a sliding scale!

Other option is that .org.uk gets first refusal if it is the oldest AND a registered charity according to Nominet's rules on tld usage. Registered before proposal cut of date!

 

[Retired_Member38]

Open to suggestions on that one. Bit of a sliding scale!

I think its an absolute disaster waiting to happen... the mini-DRS thing would be a nightmare. As it wouldn't be a clear cut thing like someone registered someone else's trademark - it would be two people each with legitimate sites (or parked pages) arguing over who deserved it most. It would take forever to get through them all. Then even longer for every round of appeals. Then you'll probably have some solicitors involved once the internal appeals process is exhausted.

Other option is that .org.uk gets first refusal if it is the oldest AND a registered charity according to Nominet's rules on tld usage.

But this goes back to people now just deciding after the fact, that a charity on a .org.uk was more deserving. When anyone else on one had just as legitimate right to do what they wanted with their domain.

If you want to start treating commercial .org.uk's as 2nd class citizens, even although they played by the rules, then we can do the same for people who parked domains and didn't use them for anything, even although that is a legitimate use too? Seems fair to me.

 

[Stephen]

rewriting history

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.

I would say Nominet presented quite a detailed plan in V1,
it was called a "consultation" but many felt at the time,
they were not really interested in alternative ideas.

The way the questions were worded on the V1 consultation where biased and did not explain
that they were looking for alternative solutions or definitions for what they were proposing.

For example, some would have taken the Nominet proposition that says .uk is for business for instance
and not bother to suggest that .org.uk's get any .uk as an older registration as it didn't fit into the parameters of the consultation,
people would only answer the questions that the form actually asked.

Only a few people did complete the V1 consultancy with a broader perspective.

Nominet and others seem to be rewriting history that they were getting ideas for the way to introduce .uk, that was not the case.
If in doubt go and read the original V1 proposal and consultation questionnaire.

If Nominet wanted to improve the UK namespace they should have started with a consultancy on that subject
and offer a range of options to debate,
not one single solution to provide the answer to all the problems the UK namespace faces
and to create a positive environment for going forward.

 

[Stephen]

.org.uk non-commercial v commercial

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.

Nominet's message to the public as to what .org.uk are is clear:

The non-commercial domain choice for charities, community groups, public service, professional institutions, not for profit and third sector organisations.

It has always been that message, no extra sentence to say we don't police it.

Although this is a selective extract from the Nominet rules, I believe Nominet should be able to place some limited expectation that the registrants comply with the intention:

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.

I do know they go on to state they will not police that intention or monitor compliance, so nobody with a commercial .org.uk site (even mine) are breaking the Nominet rules.

For the record, I don't think ANY .org.uk should get any .uk automatically
but I have tried to give a reason why commercial .org.uk's deserve them even less than non-commercial registrants.

 

[Edwin]

For example, some would have taken the Nominet proposition that says .uk is for business for instance
and not bother to suggest that .org.uk's get any .uk as an older registration as it didn't fit into the parameters of the consultation,
people would only answer the questions that the form actually asked.

Only a few people did complete the V1 consultancy with a broader perspective.

If you look at the detailed summaries produced by Nominet and by the external consultants in the wake of V1, you'll actually see a very wide range of responses - many of which went beyond the scope of V1 in all sorts of ways.

--

In fact, I'd urge everyone reading this thread to take the time to read and digest both documents. Not just to inform your own position, but to really understand and absorb just how fundamentally different the views of other interest groups are from our own. We're an echo chamber in here, largely preaching to the like-minded.

Any proposal that marginalises or ignores these differences (by focusing too narrowly on what makes sense for domainers) will consequently get shot down pretty quickly.

The only way of effecting the kinds of changes you'd like to see is to come up with a proposal (including the changes you're interested in pushing) that takes into consideration all these conflicts of interests and seeks to minimise the impact on the various sub-sets of the registration base (not just on one or two sub-sets).

Nominet .uk policy secretariat summary:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/SummaryofdirectukFeedback_1.pdf

Nomensa data analysis
http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/NomensaAnalysisFinal.pdf

 

[GreyWing]

If you look at the detailed summaries produced by Nominet and by the external consultants in the wake of V1, you'll actually see a very wide range of responses - many of which went beyond the scope of V1 in all sorts of ways.

I looked at what you said yesterday and I think your figures are flawed on the document. You said something to the effect that only 5% of respondents were domainers.

I've looked at this and I don't agree with your view.

"In total, these registrar stakeholders manage almost 70% of domain names registered within the .uk space. Nearly two thirds of responses from the channel were submitted from registrars who manage less than 1,500 domain names. A quarter of all channel respondents was active in the secondary market and constituted approximately 5% of all respondents to the consultation."​

I can only "all channel" is misleading in that it looks to people like "all channels" which I assumed at first it meant. Therefore, your response and mine was actually in the "Nearly two thirds of responses from the channel were submitted from registrars who manage less than 1,500 domain names."

Yet we would be classed by anyone else as domainers. So no I don't agree that only 5% of the consultations were from secondary market players. I reckon a lot of those two thirds of registrars that replied were actually domainers.

5% of 800 is 40, Jeez there was 30 of us that turned up to these meetings, then everyone else on here. 40 seems a very very low figure to me.

 

[Edwin]

5% of 800 is 40, Jeez there was 30 of us that turned up to these meetings, then everyone else on here. 40 seems a very very low figure to me.

I don't want to fence back and forth forever on whether it's 40 or 50 or whatever. But it's likely to be a fairly low number.

In the round-table face-to-face sessions, MOST of the room weren't domainers. They were IP interest group representatives, lawyers, registrars, a rep from the BBC, a couple of "techies" (no disrespect meant in any way - I just mean they had a technical background and were there mainly for the security aspects of the proposal) and a bare handful of domainers.

 

[GreyWing]

I don't want to fence back and forth forever on whether it's 40 or 50 or whatever. But it's likely to be a fairly low number.

Point is though that the figures your are asking us to interpret are not clear enough to make a decision. Unless they publish the results in full, which they seem to be doing this time around. We should take any findings from that initial document with a massive pinch of salt.

What looks like just 5% on the face of it could have been as high as 65% of the feedback quite easily just by interpreting things a little different.

 

[Stephen]

mini-DRS

I think its an absolute disaster waiting to happen... the mini-DRS thing would be a nightmare. As it wouldn't be a clear cut thing like someone registered someone else's trademark - it would be two people each with legitimate sites (or parked pages) arguing over who deserved it most. It would take forever to get through them all. Then even longer for every round of appeals. Then you'll probably have some solicitors involved once the internal appeals process is exhausted. ......

Regarding min-DRS dispute procedure, it would depend on what guidlelines Nominet introduced,
to provide an indication in common circumstances who might have more legimate claim (nobody has rights) to the equivalent .uk.

It would also depend if you opened it up to trade mark holders, limited companies with that name, people trading with that name in addition to .eu holders with usiness in the UK?

The cost to all parties would be a factor.

Whatever hapens I would like to see an opt out (although more costly in time and monies) of .co.uk owners
of any claim to the .uk before anybody else gets a go it at, rather than the .co.uk simply not claiming the .uk.

 

[Edwin]

Here's a thought:

Under both the "oldest first" and the ".co.uk first", there's one clear entity at the front of the line.

What if (setting aside which release method is selected for a moment) all other potentially interested parties could enter a competition mechanism to be second in line?

In other words, if the entity first in line does not take up the option of the .uk during the 6-month window, then you open it up to "trade mark holders, limited companies with that name, people trading with that name in addition to .eu holders with business in the UK" (Stephen's list - I'm just borrowing it) as well as those with matching domains in other extensions.

So there is a very simple, clear-cut mechanism to determine automatic eligibility (be that "oldest first" or ".co.uk owner first") yet the door's not completely shut on trademark holders and other parties who may have a legitimate but non-domain-based interest in the domain.

In practice, many (most? who knows) .uk will never get to that second stage at all, but the fact that it even exists may placate some interest groups since there will clearly also be cases where they do get a real crack at the .uk.

There could be a fixed "mediation fee" to be divided between the number of interested parties, plus a small "admin fee" on top. So for example if 5 parties were competing and the mediation fee was £500, they would each pay £100 of that, plus an admin fee to handle communications, etc. (say £10 or so). If 25 parties were competing, then they'd pay £20 of the mediation fee each, plus £10 admin each. Of course none of these fees would be levied until/unless there really was a "second round" runoff situation.

 

[Stephen]

The whole picture

If you look at the detailed summaries produced by Nominet and by the external consultants in the wake of V1, you'll actually see a very wide range of responses - many of which went beyond the scope of V1 in all sorts of ways.

In fact, I'd urge everyone reading this thread to take the time to read and digest both documents. Not just to inform your own position, but to really understand and absorb just how fundamentally different the views of other interest groups are from our own. We're an echo chamber in here, largely preaching to the like-minded.

Any proposal that marginalises or ignores these differences (by focusing too narrowly on what makes sense for domainers) will consequently get shot down pretty quickly.

The only way of effecting the kinds of changes you'd like to see is to come up with a proposal (including the changes you're interested in pushing) that takes into consideration all these conflicts of interests and seeks to minimise the impact on the various sub-sets of the registration base (not just on one or two sub-sets).

Nominet .uk policy secretariat summary:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/SummaryofdirectukFeedback_1.pdf

Nomensa data analysis
http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/NomensaAnalysisFinal.pdf

Agree with all the above and thanks for posting the links.

However it is not the whole story without, both the questions and the answers being looked at you cannot get a full picture.

With a different fuller set of consultation questions and approach Nominet,
I'm sure would have received even more views and ideas on what the UK namespace should evolve into.

 

[Stephen]

2nd bite

Here's a thought:

Under both the "oldest first" and the ".co.uk first", there's one clear entity at the front of the line.

What if (setting aside which release method is selected for a moment) all other potentially interested parties could enter a competition mechanism to be second in line?

In other words, if the entity first in line does not take up the option of the .uk during the 6-month window, then you open it up to "trade mark holders, limited companies with that name, people trading with that name in addition to .eu holders with business in the UK" (Stephen's list - I'm just borrowing it) as well as those with matching domains in other extensions.

So there is a very simple, clear-cut mechanism to determine automatic eligibility (be that "oldest first" or ".co.uk owner first") yet the door's not completely shut on trademark holders and other parties who may have a legitimate but non-domain-based interest in the domain.

In practice, many (most? who knows) .uk will never get to that second stage at all, but the fact that it even exists may placate some interest groups since there will clearly also be cases where they do get a real crack at the .uk.

There could be a fixed "mediation fee" to be divided between the number of interested parties, plus a small "admin fee" on top. So for example if 5 parties were competing and the mediation fee was £500, they would each pay £100 of that, plus an admin fee to handle communications, etc. (say £10 or so). If 25 parties were competing, then they'd pay £20 of the mediation fee each, plus £10 admin each. Of course none of these fees would be levied until/unless there really was a "second round" runoff situation.

Big againist, you would still have 2 different owners of a .co.uk and .uk.

On the plus it is an interesting solution if had the provisios that every effort was made to contact registrants and got them to acknowledge
they have been made aware of .uk.

Plus I would like to see more than 6 months window to claim.

If it went ahead as you suggest there would need to be clear guidelines on issues such as non utlized trademarks, in development trademarks, overseas trademarks and what if it not exact match domain etc.?

It would certinly be fairer than a sunrise auction, which would still probably come in after this new 2nd place stage.

 

[Lovekraft]

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

IF it does have to go ahead, i can see this as the only fair and sane solution.

Why? Because .co.uk has always been the intended commercial space, it's where companies have spent most money marketing and developing their brands, it's why .co.uk domains on the secondary market have always dictated higher resale prices (Nominet know this all too well from the 2 letter auctions).

Charities operating on org.uk's don't need the .uk equivalent, it doesn't compete with them. Those who chose to develop a commercial site on an org.uk (i've developed affiliate sites on org.uk's myself) done so against it's intended purpose, maybe not illegally in the eyes of Nominet but certainly it shouldn't warrant them entitlement to first dibs in the new space.

However, i still think on the whole it is unnecessary but that's for another thread!

 

[Retired_Member38]

But .UK isn't only intended for commercial sites now. So if you have a charity on an .org.uk that was registered before a commercial site on a .co.uk, it seems strange to give the later registrant the .uk to me.

 

[Lovekraft]

But .UK isn't only intended for commercial sites now. So if you have a charity on an .org.uk that was registered before a commercial site on a .co.uk, it seems strange to give the later registrant the .uk to me.

Well i'm not sure on that, but if this is the case then it highlights one of the fundamental flaws of this whole thing. If what you are saying is, they intend to make .uk a multi purpose use then it's just going to confuse and mess up all the other extensions.

Are you sure on that though?

 

[websaway]

But .UK isn't only intended for commercial sites now. So if you have a charity on an .org.uk that was registered before a commercial site on a .co.uk, it seems strange to give the later registrant the .uk to me.

Why would a true not for profit organisation want to have anything other than .org or org.uk ?

 

[Retired_Member38]

Why would a true not for profit organisation want to have anything other than .org or org.uk ?

Because if things go some people are predicting here, .uk is going to be the main choice for a UK website. Clearly they would then want their .uk to avoid losing any type ins.

If you wanted to visit the Natural History Museum, and you knew .uk was the main extension for the country you were looking at, would naturalhistorymuseum.uk not be a good place to start looking? I know they're actually on NHM rather than the full words... but you know what I mean.

 

[Retired_Member38]

A DRS would sort this if it was a problem for them.

So what about ones which wouldn't fall under the DRS system, but there is a clear public benefit to one side getting a domain.

QEF.co.uk is a parked domain, predating the .org.uk. The org.uk is the official charity of the Queen.

You're not going to be able to drs a 3 letter domain like this. Yet I think if you ask any non domainer, they are going to say the fairest recipient of this domain is going to be the charity.

How are you going to get around this? Or is it a case of you only want to make separate exceptions to charities, when it can be used as a smokescreen to take a shot at commercial use of .org.uk's?