.UK Announced

[Nigel]

Mark - This is the way I put it to Eleanor Bradley

'In view of the legal advice you received which stopped you sending emails to registrants, can I ask you how you propose informing registrants of the introduction of directuk if it proceeds in its current form? If your legal advisers believe that it is a ‘new service’ and that the Data Protection Act (and your interpretation of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003) prevents you from emailing registrants are you saying that no notice by email will be given to existing registrants of the chance to register a direct.uk domain if it proceeds? Will existing registrants need to rely on information from the media, press, and newspapers to find out about the possible launch of direct.uk?'

 

[Systreg]

If for some reason nominet ignore everyones comments and went ahead unchallenged with the direct.uk implementation, do you think they will email all existing .org.uk and .co.uk domain holders to let them know about the auctions for corresponding domains? We know they have stated that direct.uk is a totally new product (even though its aimed at businesses who already own .co.uk domains) and has nothing to do with existing domain registrants.

From the ico.gov site regarding spam emails http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/online/spam_emails.aspx

What does the law say?

The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 cover the sending of email marketing. This legislation says that organisations must only send marketing emails to individuals if you have agreed to receive them, except where there is a clearly defined customer relationship.

I'm not signed up to any of Nominets email lists, so I don't receive anything from them, but I need to know about auctions etc if they do bring out these new domains, at the same time, if they decide to email me about them, that will be spamming me as I haven't agreed for them to email me.

To get around that, Nominet could use the "except where there is a clearly defined customer relationship" part of the quote above, but at the same time, why then did they not email all registrants about the consultations, they could have as that would also come under the bolded part of the quote, as all registrants are clearly in a defined customer relationship with Nominet.

 

[Stephen]

...To get around that, Nominet could use the "except where there is a clearly defined customer relationship" part of the quote above, but at the same time, why then did they not email all registrants about the consultations, they could have as that would also come under the bolded part of the quote, as all registrants are clearly in a defined customer relationship with Nominet.

If they go ahead with .uk, whatever changes they make to it, they will use this infomormation about emails to allow them legally to send out emails about .uk.

The sceptical part of me would say they will raise more money from the launch by sending emails to the owners of the 10 million UK domains when they announce its launch not at the consultation stage.

Will they also contact by mail all the UK trademark holders?

They will never it admit, sending the emails to registrants, would have been the right thing to do for the .uk consultation.

Strange that this was pointed out to them a long time ago and yet they didn't contact registrants with a wales address about .wales?

 

[Nigel]

From the ico.gov site regarding spam emails http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/online/spam_emails.aspx

[/B]

I'm not signed up to any of Nominets email lists, so I don't receive anything from them, but I need to know about auctions etc if they do bring out these new domains, at the same time, if they decide to email me about them, that will be spamming me as I haven't agreed for them to email me.

To get around that, Nominet could use the "except where there is a clearly defined customer relationship" part of the quote above, but at the same time, why then did they not email all registrants about the consultations, they could have as that would also come under the bolded part of the quote, as all registrants are clearly in a defined customer relationship with Nominet.

Great observation - We need answers from Nominet on this. I see one of their legal representatives is on the forum today. Can't he give us some answers right here and now?

 

[Nigel]

Just found the electronic mail regulations that apply to the sending of emails to limited companies or 'corporate subscribers' as they are called. Now I don't agree that informing existing registrants about the implications of direct.uk and asking for feedback is 'marketing' but it seems Nominet are trying to class it as such. But even if it could be construed as 'marketing', business to business marketing is clearly allowed under these regulations. So Nominet could have emailed limited companies and other 'corporate subscribers' to ask for feedback. I cannot think of any reason why a responsible registry would not have taken up this opportunity.

There are around 1.3m Limited Companies in the UK. Most Limited Companies will have a website and most will operate from a .co.uk domain name. There is simply no excuse for not reaching out to these companies. It's worth noting that the Data Protection Act also does not apply to Limited Companies. I cannot believe that Nominet are not aware of these facts. It also wouldn't have been hard for Nominet to identify Limited Companies on their database. Certainly a lot easier than identifying, and writing to the 20,000 registered trademark holders in 2010when they were conducting their consultation for the short letter domain release and auction.

Here's the link to the relevant page. There's a lot of info and you'll need to scroll at least threequarters down the page.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisat...communications/the_guide/electronic_mail.aspx

And here is the relevant information:


[B]How do the Regulations apply to business-to-business marketing by electronic mail? [/B]

Your obligations are as follows:
•You must not conceal your identity when you send, or instigate the sending of, a marketing message by electronic mail to anyone (including corporate subscribers); and

•you must provide a valid address to which the recipient (including corporate subscribers) can send an opt-out request (Regulation 23 applies).


Only individual subscribers have an enforceable right of opt-out under these Regulations. This is where that individual withdraws the consent they previously gave to receiving marketing by electronic mail (that consent only being valid for the time being (Regulation 22(2) applies)). Corporate subscribers do not have this right.

Recipients who are corporate subscribers do not have an enforceable opt-out right under the Regulations. But where your sending of marketing material to the employee of a company includes processing their personal data (that is, you know the name of the person you are contacting), then that individual has a fundamental and enforceable right under Section 11 of the Data Protection Act to ask you to stop sending them marketing material.

In our view, it makes no business sense to continue sending marketing material to a business contact who no longer wishes to hear from you. Arguably, by failing to respect a business-to-business opt-out request you may appear indifferent to your commercial reputation.

How do these Regulations apply to unsolicited marketing material sent by electronic mail to individual employees of a corporate subscriber if that material promotes goods and services that are clearly meant for their personal or domestic use?

The ‘Spam’ report of an Inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Internet Group (APPIG) recommended that the Information Commissioner set out clear guidance as to how business-to-business communications are to be distinguished from messages intended for individual subscribers. This recommendation was prompted by an observation that an invitation to buy Viagra, sent to the sales address of a shipping company, could only be interpreted as being sent to an individual, since it would be of no business relevance. The problem is that the ‘opt-in’ and soft opt-in rules do not extend to sending marketing emails to corporate subscribers. In the example above the subscriber will be the shipping company, because that is the person who is party to a contract with a provider of public electronic communications systems. So this means that even an email addressed to an individual in the company will not be covered by the Regulations, although that email may be subject to the DPA, and an opt-out request under Section 11 of the DPA could be issued.

For the purposes of the Regulations, it is irrelevant that an email sent to a corporate subscriber’s address is obviously aimed at an individual because it promotes a product that is for personal or domestic use. The Regulations simply do not cover emails sent to a corporate subscriber, except that you must identify yourself and to provide contact details. However, such emails are likely to be covered by the individual’s right to object to direct marketing under the Data Protection Act.

We understand that the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code restricts the sending of such emails to corporate email addresses. For more on the CAP Code visit their website www.cap.org.uk.

 

[markb]

I would say one of the obvious answers to why they havent asked for feedback from all domain owners, or just limited companies, is the fact that they wouldnt have the manpower and time to read and process all the feedback from them. It was probably just easier to ask a limited number of people for their responses.

 

[Systreg]

I would say one of the obvious answers to why they havent asked for feedback from all domain owners, or just limited companies, is the fact that they wouldnt have the manpower and time to read and process all the feedback from them. It was probably just easier to ask a limited number of people for their responses.

To me, that wouldn't be a valid excuse, as they seem to like spending their millions, they could have hired as as many people as they needed to go through the feedback, and present Nominet with a simple yes or no to each one about the consultation, they would have got a good idea of peoples opinions from that count.

 

[markb]

I was wondering when I read about the 'children’s charities coalition' opposing the direct.uk proposals. Is there any coalitions for small businesses in the UK that could help and use their power to put pressure on nominet?

We all know that its going to be mainly small businesses that suffer from the direct.uk proposals, so I think its a good idea if we could get people on board who support small businesses.

 

[GreyWing]

Maybe trying to contact one of the Dragons from the BBC, they are always up for a bit of publicity and it is a great cause. They usually have twitter accounts and are on the ball so will spot the importance of this.

 

[markb]

Maybe trying to contact one of the Dragons from the BBC, they are always up for a bit of publicity and it is a great cause. They usually have twitter accounts and are on the ball so will spot the importance of this.

I don't think think its something the any of the dragons would be interested in, they are usually only interested in their own companies, and they are not small businesses. They have a lot of money behind them and always make sure they have trademarks filed, so the direct.uk proposals wouldnt effect them directly.

I'm talking about the millions of very small businesses where people work from home or small offices and have .co.uk websites, without any trademarks filed to protect their names, or use more generic names where they cannot trademark their names. These businesses that don't have a lot of spare money are the ones that are going to lose their corresponding domain names under the proposals.

 

[Stephen]

contact all registrants

..... So Nominet could have emailed limited companies and other 'corporate subscribers' to ask for feedback. I cannot think of any reason why a responsible registry would not have taken up this opportunity.

There are around 1.3m Limited Companies in the UK. Most Limited Companies will have a website and most will operate from a .co.uk domain name. There is simply no excuse for not reaching out to these companies. It's worth noting that the Data Protection Act also does not apply to Limited Companies. I cannot believe that Nominet are not aware of these facts.

Thanks for that researched post.

Also I think it is worth pointing out that under there "contract" with all registrars I believe Nominet have the right to contact all registrants with relevant information that would effect them.

Although nominet decided unilaterally that .uk was to be a new product rather than a migration that many have suggested it should be, they still gave some rights to existing registrants and therefore those registrants should be consulted, to find out if they feel those rights were adequate?

 

[Nigel]

I don't think think its something the any of the dragons would be interested in, they are usually only interested in their own companies, and they are not small businesses. They have a lot of money behind them and always make sure they have trademarks filed, so the direct.uk proposals wouldnt effect them directly.

I'm talking about the millions of very small businesses where people work from home or small offices and have .co.uk websites, without any trademarks filed to protect their names, or use more generic names where they cannot trademark their names. These businesses that don't have a lot of spare money are the ones that are going to lose their corresponding domain names under the proposals.

Very well put Mark - I think the opposition campaign has wind in its sails. I think most pressure will come through MPs raising this in Parliament and Media interest. We need to get Labour MPs involved. We need a Labour MP to question the statement made by Ed Vaizey on 8th January 2013 when he was asked what was being done to protect small businesses with .co.uk addresses. He did not answer the question directly and said that:

"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."

Yet we know that Nominet did not directly contact any of its existing registrants including the millions of small businesses with .co.uk addresses. I believe that information that should have been divulged to Parliament. Mr Vaizey says the information he provided came from Nominet. It wouldn't be hard for a Labour MP to score some points on this. If you have a Labour MP in your constituency what harm would it do to collate some information and send it off. That's how monaghan on here got the question raised by his MP. That reminds me - I've had no response from Mr Vaizey to my two emails - think I'll phone his office.

 

[Stephen]

local MP

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....

Thanks for the post it prompted me into action, as although I have written to several MP's about .uk, apart from Stephen McPartland had received no real responses, so I thought I'd have another go.

So I resent my message to my local MP Caroline Nokes MP attaching "What is wrong with the Nominet .uk proposal?" with a bit of update information and now she says she is going to bring it up with the Minister and I have an appointment with her to bring her up to date on .uk.

 

[monaghan]

I'm talking about the millions of very small businesses where people work from home or small offices and have .co.uk websites, without any trademarks filed to protect their names, or use more generic names where they cannot trademark their names. These businesses that don't have a lot of spare money are the ones that are going to lose their corresponding domain names under the proposals.

This is the point that my MP (Stephen McPartland) seems to have picked out of my correspondence and seems to be trying to address.

The small guy who "got" the Internet early on and registered a good domain is going to suffer to the guys with the money, surely if we are going to use the Internet seriously for business in the UK we NEED these little guys so MUST be backing them, NOT handing all the good real estate over to those with the deepest pockets.

 

[bulkcorn]

I would say one of the obvious answers to why they havent asked for feedback from all domain owners, or just limited companies, is the fact that they wouldnt have the manpower and time to read and process all the feedback from them. It was probably just easier to ask a limited number of people for their responses.

Collating results from a poll wouldn't require any additional manpower. Send out the emails containing the poll at the touch of a button, and they will be able to see in an instant how many .co.uk registrants want 'Mr Deep Pockets' to grab their corresponding .uk domains.

Sample poll

Dear Registrant, Please choose one or more of the following:
1. I would like to be offered first refusal of my corresponding .uk domain
2. I would like to be automatically awarded the corresponding .uk version of my domain
3. I would like to go to auction against Mr Deep Pockets for the corresponding version of my .uk domain
4. I would prefer Mr Deep Pockets to claim my corresponding .uk domain by him merely waving his 'very ridiculously' classified trademark rights at Nominet.
5. .uk should not be introduced because it would create a lot of confusion for individuals and businesses.
6. .uk should be introduced as it's what I've always wanted for Christmas

It would not be difficult to collate the results of the above if a poll was sent out to some 1,000,000 registrants. All Nominet needs to do is sit back and wait for people to respond over a given period of time.

 

[Nigel]

I've been doing a bit of research into Nominet's statements on domain security, cybersquatting etc. They used to say that similar domains being registered by third parties was a major concern. That threat seems to have been swept under the carpet and they now say that domain security would be improved by security features to the domain, validation and ongoing maintenance of the domain service. No mention at all about the serious threats posed to business by means of a competitor or malicious person/company registering a confusingly similar domain. Here's what Phil Kingsland, Director of Communications and Marketing at Nominet has said in a number of previous articles:

"The Internet offers a number of opportunities to market a brand online, but the domain name real-estate market is big business and you need to take steps to protect your brand. For example, someone else could try to take advantage of your brand awareness by registering a similar domain name to capture traffic when customers misspell domain names, often known as typosquatting. They may then divert the web traffic to another site to profit from consumers looking for your site. Alternatively, successful brands may be targeted by cybersquatters who register domain names that are likely to become popular and then sell them on at an inflated price...".

Here is the full article
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2012/05/22/five-domain-name-tips-help-market-your-brand


"Once a company has successfully registered the right domain name for its business it is important to protect it from falling into the wrong hands such as cybersquatters — ignoring their existence can be an expensive risk.

What is cybersquatting?

Cybersquatting is where someone chooses to register, sell or use a domain name with the sole purpose of profiting from another brand’s trademark. For instance, if Nominet has built up a brand around nominet.org.uk, someone could register nominet.co.uk and try and sell it to Nominet for a profit."

Here's the full article
http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/business_advice.php?CID=3&AID=1488&PGID=1


"Phil Kingsland, director of marketing at .uk registry Nominet, argued that businesses could struggle to manage the proliferation of new gTLDs when they come on the market, and must decide whether to register defensively, or risk cyber squatting or lost revenue.

"Their concern will be how to find out about all of them," he said. "There should be one area of the business responsible for registering domains, and it needs to understand the value of having a new domain and the potential traffic that could be lost otherwise."Here's the full article:
http://www.bit.com.au/News/140090,new-generic-tlds-will-open-cyber-squatting-floodgates.aspx

And compare those statements with the article he provided to the Guardian at this link when Mr Kingsland argued for the introduction of .uk - a safer 'more trusted' product.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-net...2012/dec/17/value-secure-uk-namespace-nominet

Confusion, cyber crime and loss of traffic caused by similarities in domain names is, it appears, no longer a security issue. I would however rather trust Mr Kingsland's previous warnings, the ones published before .uk appeared on the scene. I think the confusion between .uk and .co.uk - two designated commercial domains - will however be much greater than the .org.uk and .co.uk example Mr Kingsland gave above (see bolded sentence).

 

[markb]

I don't think nominet would be too happy if someone else registered the domain nominet.uk . Obviously they would never let this happen, but they are obviously more than happy to let it happen to potentially hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Nominet should be making sure this doesnt happen and thinking about how they can protect small businesses, who have already invested in .co.uk domains for their businesses.

 

[Alien]

I don't think nominet would be too happy if someone else registered the domain nominet.uk . Obviously they would never let this happen, but they are obviously more than happy to let it happen to potentially hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Nominet should be making sure this doesnt happen and thinking about how they can protect small businesses, who have already invested in .co.uk domains for their businesses.

Spot on!

 

[Rob_F]

This was originally posted in the .wales thread by Acorn member: Bulkhorn. I thought it was well worth reposting it here...

The above options as offered in the .cymru/.wales weren't offered in the .uk consultation. They should have been offered.

---
Directly link the registries so that if someone registers example.cymru then the same label in the other domain (i.e. example.wales) is reserved for use by the registrant and vice versa.
---

---
Rather than automatically reserve the alternative domain name as set out in option 1 above, offer the registrant first refusal of the alternative domain name (if it is not already registered) at a reduced rate. If this is not taken up by the registrant then the alternative name will be available for registration.
---

The above options as offered in the .cymru/.wales weren't offered in the .uk consultation. They should have been offered.

- Rob

 

[DomainManagement]

yep

Great point ,

should be re named Nomicon

its so Gung Ho

Via Graeme

Maybe we can cite discrimination ??

that Wales gets it and we don't !!!