.UK Announced

[markb]

I think what it boils down to, is that if you are a business and you own a website built on a .co.uk domain name, you cannt afford to let someone come along and take the .uk version of your domain name.

By letting the .uk version go to someone else, you are leaving your business open to be abused as the .uk will look like it has more authority being shorter and people will confuse the 2 domains.

The problem is the majority of business owners won't even have the option to secure the .uk version of their domain, they will either be beaten their by trademark holders or they won't know about the auctions so other people will register their corresponding domains.

Nominet would'nt be able to email the millions of businesses to let them know that the corresponding domain was being auctioned. This is because nominet have said the .uk domains are a totally seperate product, so would have no relevance to businesses owners with .co.uk domains or .org.uk organisations, so couldnt email them about it. This would mean, because only domainers would know about the new .uk domains, that they could register the majority of the new domains when they are released.

 

[websaway]

I think what it boils down to, is that if you are a business and you own a website built on a .co.uk domain name, you cannt afford to let someone come along and take the .uk version of your domain name.

By letting the .uk version go to someone else, you are leaving your business open to be abused as the .uk will look like it has more authority being shorter and people will confuse the 2 domains.

The problem is the majority of business owners won't even have the option to secure the .uk version of their domain, they will either be beaten their by trademark holders or they won't know about the auctions so other people will register their corresponding domains.

Nominet would'nt be able to email the millions of businesses to let them know that the corresponding domain was being auctioned. This is because nominet have said the .uk domains are a totally seperate product, so would have no relevance to businesses owners with .co.uk domains or .org.uk organisations, so couldnt email them about it. This would mean, because only domainers would know about the new .uk domains, that they could register the majority of the new domains when they are released.

You've certainly captured it there for me.
Stinks of deception.

 

[markb]

Ive noticed some people on here have managed to send emails to people in nominet and get actual direct responses to those. Do you know who I should be emailing? I would like someone at nominet to respond directly to my concerns coming from a business owner who owns successful .co.uk websites. I know my concerns will be the same as millions of other uk businesses, and we havent yet had a response from nominet which would put our minds at ease.

Thanks

 

[TinkyWinky]

This is only a consultation and we have not decided what marketing we would do after the introduction of .uk, so no decision has been made on what we would say about each UK extension.

Well that's utter sh&t.

If that is a 100% true statement then every single one us needs to ask what the f&&& they are doing as Directors.

Why?

Because you would not run a consultation without a pretty solid "master plan"!

Yes things will change based on the outcome - but unless I am a bit odd here, you'd have an outline economic, marketing and advertising plan as you would need to know the ramifications of each one based on the consultation - especially with one that's been as loaded as this.

So:

If this is not part of their "master plan" then we need to ask why bother running the consultation then.

If it is part of the "master plan" then they are lying.

Why Does it Matter?

This consultation has cost a lot of time and money as well as using all the resources of Nominet.

So if this IS an official line - then I suggest we challenge them now on what they are doing strategically as either way this doesn't add up.

What a bunch of fools.

 

[Stephen]

Nominet post .uk world planning

If that is a 100% true statement then every single one us needs to ask what the f&&& they are doing as Directors.

I quote from a Nominet email I received back to these very questions, on this subject of a post .uk world:

" As it is not decided whether a direct.uk service will proceed, or if it does the form the service might take,
it is simply not possible to provide answers to your questions on implementation, strategy, marketing communications,
or how any changes to terms and conditions might manifest themselves. "

This is also the standard answer (although not quite as verbose) at the face to face meetings with Nominet, I received.

 

[jimmc]

Challenge them, the primary UK extension has already been sold and cannot be sold twice. I have told them in my reply that what they are doing is morally wrong and probably illegal. This same idea was rolled out in 2008 and it was soundly beaten.

The security spiel is just that and will make no difference whatsoever.

This however will seriously devalue any .co.uk and I have said that "if" the .uk is to be introduced "they must" supply it FREE to the .co.uk owner and the .co.uk should be phased out completely but only when the replacement name has reached parity for the original owners on Google.

This is nothing more than a money making exercise for Nominet, UK Gov plc and those registrars who just happen to be on the Nominet board!!!

Lets take them on - Whens the EGM???

 

[Systreg]

This is nothing more than a money making exercise for Nominet, UK Gov plc and those registrars who just happen to be on the Nominet board!!!

As far as I'm concerned, trying to sell something that has already been sold, makes them all scammers.

 

[anthony]

I'm not even sure Nominet has the legal right to roll out .uk, it was never founded on that basis, which stems only from .uk sub domains managed by the UK Naming Committee. Authority for coordinating and administering the co.uk sub-domain was delegated to the UK Naming Committee made up of three commercial and two non-commercial Internet Access Providers. However, the Joint Network Team, which subsequently evolved into the UK Education and Research Networking Association (UKERNA), maintained a right of veto over decisions reached by this committee. Nominet evolved from the committee, which still to this day has no control .ac.uk.

Any decision which may affect the educational establishments of the UK in any way should be referred to Parlaiment.

 

[websaway]

I think the views on this thread are now repeating those at the outset in October,which is good because it shows a consistency of common sense.

 

[Nigel]

New Song to sing 'spam when they want to'

Just read this on the i.co.uk site. Has this been discussed on here? Has anyone got a link to the old release on this as I'd like to see it.

"We also just picked up this little snippet from an old release concerning the Short Domain consultation Nominet undertook back in 2010 prior to an issue relating to a little over 2,800 short domains. “Nominet also wrote to the holders of approximately 20,000 trademarks corresponding to the character sets potentially subject to release ……” So they contacted directly 20,000 POTENTIAL stakeholders as part of that consultation but not the ACTUAL 10,276,759 stakeholders this go round. hmmmmmmm"

and the link is here:
http://i.co.uk/?p=11797

 

[Nigel]

I'm not even sure Nominet has the legal right to roll out .uk, it was never founded on that basis, which stems only from .uk sub domains managed by the UK Naming Committee. Authority for coordinating and administering the co.uk sub-domain was delegated to the UK Naming Committee made up of three commercial and two non-commercial Internet Access Providers. However, the Joint Network Team, which subsequently evolved into the UK Education and Research Networking Association (UKERNA), maintained a right of veto over decisions reached by this committee. Nominet evolved from the committee, which still to this day has no control .ac.uk.

Any decision which may affect the educational establishments of the UK in any way should be referred to Parlaiment.

very good point Anthony

 

[Stephen]

Just read this on the i.co.uk site. Has this been discussed on here? Has anyone got a link to the old release on this as I'd like to see it.

"We also just picked up this little snippet from an old release concerning the Short Domain consultation Nominet undertook back in 2010 prior to an issue relating to a little over 2,800 short domains. “Nominet also wrote to the holders of approximately 20,000 trademarks corresponding to the character sets potentially subject to release ……” So they contacted directly 20,000 POTENTIAL stakeholders as part of that consultation but not the ACTUAL 10,276,759 stakeholders this go round. hmmmmmmm"

and the link is here:
http://i.co.uk/?p=11797

Thanks for that.

Early in this thread, I was sceptical about the posts about how Nominet were just interested in monies and that the web redesign of the Nominet website in October 2012 enabled them to bury many old links.

Now I'm not so sure?

 

[Nigel]

Thanks for that.

Early in this thread, I was sceptical about the posts about how Nominet were just interested in monies and that the web redesign of the Nominet website in October 2012 enabled them to bury many old links.

Now I'm not so sure?

Nothing surprises me about the way they operate any more. Is the owner of i.co.uk a member on here? Perhaps he could publish the full release if he still has a copy.

 

[miked]

Another MP to add to those that have made representations to Nominet: my local MP Clive Betts (Sheffield South-East), who wrote to them after meeting me in early December.

Just received an eMail the Head of Secretariat (whatever that is) at Nominet. Very polite, simply reasserting present position of 'more concrete news after the consultation'. Only interesting points were that after Mr. Betts' letter apparently the CEO herself asked the HoS to contact me, and that she noted that I submitted my feedback on the 1st of October (probably marks me out as a tad keen/awkward...).

Roll on the February meeting, I suppose...

 

[Nigel]

Another MP to add to those that have made representations to Nominet: my local MP Clive Betts (Sheffield South-East), who wrote to them after meeting me in early December.

Just received an eMail the Head of Secretariat (whatever that is) at Nominet. Very polite, simply reasserting present position of 'more concrete news after the consultation'. Only interesting points were that after Mr. Betts' letter apparently the CEO herself asked the HoS to contact me, and that she noted that I submitted my feedback on the 1st of October (probably marks me out as a tad keen/awkward...).

Roll on the February meeting, I suppose...

Well done Mike - every MP counts. I have just written to Helen Goodman - MP for Bishop Auckland. It's not my constituency but she is the Shadow Minister responsible for this so I think its appropriate to get her involved. (I did check with her Parliamentary office and she deals with Nominet matters and shadows Ed Vaizey). If anyone is in her constituency then it might help if you also write to her.

I have just written to Eleanor Bradley, COO Nominet again. Mike -you might like to make your MP aware of the question Stephen McPartland asked in Parliament on behalf of small businesses with .co.uk addresses. It is my concern that Ed Vaizey did not directly answer the question and did not furnish Parliament with all the relevant facts - including the crucial fact that nominet did not, in fact, write to any small businesses with .co.uk addresses. Here's my latest email to Eleanor Bradley:


"Dear Ms Bradley

Thank you for your letter of 15 January 2013. I would like to take this opportunity to appraise you of some information and then ask you some further questions.


On 8 January 2013 Stephen McPartland MP asked a question in Parliament on behalf of small businesses with .co.uk addresses. Minister Ed Vaizey MP provided the response. This is the exchange as recorded in Hansard.



"On Tuesday 8th January 2013 Stephen McPartland MP asked a Parliamentary question regarding .uk:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she plans to take to ensure that small businesses with .co.uk addresses are not put at a disadvantage by the creation of the .uk domain name.

The response by the Minister Ed Vaizey MP was:

Nominet is recognised by the Government as the registry with responsibility for oversight of the “.uk” top level internet domain. It is a private sector, not for profit, public purpose company. Its day-to-day operations are not subject to regulation by the Government. Nominet welcomes suggestions about “.uk”policy development. It is currently carrying out a public consultation on proposals to create a new shorter “.uk” domain with enhanced security features which would allow for the first time registrations at the second level immediately before the dot (e.g. “culture.uk”).


Nominet has informed Government that its consultation is gathering perspectives from a broad range of stakeholders—including small businesses and their representatives—to inform their decision-making. Nominet has stated that it will be carefully considering that feedback in line with the company’s public purpose.


Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 8 January 2013, c213W)"

Mr Vaizey does not directly answer Mr McPartland's question but instead refers to the 'public consultation' and information he says has been supplied to him by Nominet. I believe Mr Vaizey should have informed Parliament that existing registrants, including the small businesses with .co.uk addresses, which were the specific subject of Mr McPartland's question, had not been contacted about the "public consultation on proposals to create a new shorter “.uk” domain". Nominet are well aware of the controversy caused by this decision, a decision which means that the feedback you received will not be from a balanced cross section of your existing customers. Many small businesses with .co.uk addresses would have given you feedback had they been advised of the consultation. I have been in correspondence with you on this very subject since 20 December 2012, and it is a major topic that has been discussed on forums and at your meetings. I am surprised that Mr Vaizey did not furnish Parliament with this information.

In this respect I have just watched a Nominet webcast of your .uk Registrar Conference 2012 held at Sky Loft, Millbank Tower on 21 November 2012. Here is the link:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/how-participate/events/events-meetings/uk-registrar-conference

I believe you were present at this conference. During a Question and Answers Session (at around 35.40 minutes to 38 minutes) the following question was answered by 'Phil' (I believe he is one of the executives who helped shape the consultation process). The question was "What was our decision making thoughts when we decided not to contact or try to contact 10m people and small businesses and large businesses". Phil answered "so the decision making behind the contacting of the 10m .co.uk holders, .org.uk holders and .me.uk holders, the thinking behind that was that, that actually Nick might be better, be better placed to answer this question, but from a legal perspective, from a data protection perspective we would be unable to do that from a perspective of potentially spamming people".

Could you please answer each of the following questions

1) a) Have Nominet informed Mr Vaizey that existing registrants (including all small businesses with .uk addresses) were not informed about the direct.uk consultation. Have you told Mr Vaizey that these 'small businesses with .co.uk addresses' were not asked for feedback.

b) If so, on what date did you inform Mr Vaizey of this fact.

2) Can you clarify a point for me. In your latest email you made the following comment 'The process, as designed by the executive did not include a recommendation to contact every registrant of an existing .uk domain as it was felt that such mass emailing was inappropriate action for a domain name registry to take...' . I take it that 'inappropriate action' refers to the fact that the executive, having received 'legal advice', felt they could not, legally, contact your existing registrants. That was the reason you gave me in writing on 28 December 2012 and confirmed by 'Phil' at the .uk Registrar conference on 21 November 2012. Please confirm that I am correct in this assumption.


3) You have refused to supply me with a copy of the 'legal advice' received from your 'in house legal team'. Can you confirm that this 'legal advice' was put in writing and can you also confirm the date on which this 'legal advice 'was given?


4) Did the executive ever consider getting external legal advice on this matter?


Thank you for your attention to this. I now look forward to hearing from you."

 

[Edwin]

Worth mentioning at this point that MPs (unlike Nominet) are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, if anyone wants to take new "ammunition" raised by some of the recent posts and find out who knew what, who was told what, etc... and get the exact wording of any communications.

 

[Brassneck]

Worth mentioning at this point that MPs (unlike Nominet) are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, if anyone wants to take new "ammunition" raised by some of the recent posts and find out who knew what, who was told what, etc... and get the exact wording of any communications.

Edwin

I don't think that is technically correct. MPs are not Government or public authorities. This sets out the situation I think - http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/

Stephen.

 

[Stephen]

Baroness Fritchie

Has anybody seen Baroness Fritchie (Nominet chair person) at any of the Nominet .uk roundtable meetings or the UK registrar meeting in London or seen any views from her about the Nominet .uk proposal?

I have not but did come across this when looking into .wales Nominet is trying to launch:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2012/12/19/baroness-fritchie-has-time-for-everybody-s-troubles-91466-32454173/

 

[GreyWing]

Has anybody seen Baroness Fritchie (Nominet chair person) at any of the Nominet .uk roundtable meetings or the UK registrar meeting in London or seen any views from her about the Nominet .uk proposal?

I have not but did come across this when looking into .wales Nominet is trying to launch:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2012/12/19/baroness-fritchie-has-time-for-everybody-s-troubles-91466-32454173/

She was supposed to be at the Milbank Tower one, in fact Chairing / presenting instead of Piers it but she turned up an hour or more late and stood at the back.

 

[Nigel]

Has anybody seen Baroness Fritchie (Nominet chair person) at any of the Nominet .uk roundtable meetings or the UK registrar meeting in London or seen any views from her about the Nominet .uk proposal?

I have not but did come across this when looking into .wales Nominet is trying to launch:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2012/12/19/baroness-fritchie-has-time-for-everybody-s-troubles-91466-32454173/

'Her mission was to launch a consultation to help shape the new internet domains for Wales, and in doing this she told business leaders that money made from new Welsh domain names will be reinvested in Wales.'

Does anyone really believe that .wales will make money? I think we'll (i.e. existing .uk domain owners) will be subsidising this for many years to come. I'd like to see a full costing for this exercise. Is there one? including cost of registering the .wales domain, cost of staffing, pension costs, office space and annual charge for facilities, etc. I think its no co-incidence that .uk is being proposed at the same time. They need money to subsidise projects like this.