.UK Announced

[Nigel]

Nominet's defense has been ..... sorry I dont know because they have never supplied a satisfactory explanation or any answers on confusion.

Can you find a .uk FAQ that answered it?

One reason they consultation may not have gone wider to registrants and the public is that under the government guidlelines on "consultation" Nominet would have been required to add more content to explain the situation and background as the reader/participant would have less knowledge than the registrars they did contact.

I asked Nominet during the process to add such ".uk pros and cons" to their website during the consultation, they replied saying they were gathering information at this stage and it would therefore not be appropriate to do so.

Thanks Stephen - interesting that you specifically asked them why they hadn't listed the pros and cons. It's clear that their consultation and the various articles and videos since have only listed the pros. Then they give you the 'gathering information' reason. Makes us feel more secure i.e. there's going to be more to this consultation - they're going to list the pros and cons later. As we all now that's part of their plan. Because we know, from their own words, that they would push forward with .uk if the consultation responses gave them the green light. I had made some notes on the UK registrars conference 2012 and just listened to some excerpts of that video link.

Piers White - says at 4mins30sec
"this feedback will help us to shape the plans and take everyones views into account"

Lesley Cowley - says at 15mins 50sec

"during 2013...depending on consultation responses either launch or shelve direct.uk"

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

 

[Stephen]

confusion?

Just finished the 1 hour webinar that was .wales with Nominet.

I was one of 39 guests.

They started about the options with .wales and .cymru and I thought this was interesting, on the question Nigel recently raised, they pointed out:

Concerned about the risk of cybersquatting if there is no link between the two tld's

So if they think .wales and .cymru different ownership would be confusing what about .co.uk and .uk,
especially as even under their proposal probably due to domain brand protection
it would be the same owner the majority of the time, so the mindset would be established.

Also they clarified a DNSSEC issue at the roundtable meetings, during .uk roundtable meetings I was told that DNSSEC was a compulsory requirement of the new ICANN gTLD's and that was a main reason why .uk need it, to compete against these new gTLD's.

However as it is only optional for .wales I asked what happened to the compulsory ICANN requirement on DNSSEC? It was stated today that it is compulsory for the registry(Nominet) to be able to sign it, it is not compulsory for the registrant to adopt it.

Nominet is in compliance with DNSSEC now for .co.uk and .org.uk and therefore there was no need to make it compulsory using ICANN rules as cover, another smokescreen.

 

[Nigel]

Just finished the 1 hour webinar that was .wales with Nominet.

I was one of 39 guests.

They started about the options with .wales and .cymru and I thought this was interesting, on the question Nigel recently raised, they pointed out:

Also they clarified a DNSSEC issue at the roundtable meetings, during .uk roundtable meetings I was told that DNSSEC was a compulsory requirement of the new ICANN gTLD's and that was a main reason why .uk need it, to compete against these new gTLD's.

However as it is only optional for .wales I asked what happened to the compulsory ICANN requirement on DNSSEC? It was stated today that it is compulsory for the registry(Nominet) to be able to sign it, it is not compulsory for the registrant to adopt it.

Nominet is in compliance with DNSSEC now for .co.uk and .org.uk and therefore there was no need to make it compulsory using ICANN rules as cover, another smokescreen.

Well done there Stephen - you've collated some important info - shows the two faces of Nominet.

 

[GreyWing]

Well done there Stephen - you've collated some important info - shows the two faces of Nominet.

Why have you stopped at two mate? I'm well into double figures

 

[TinkyWinky]

I still don't understand why Nominet feels the need to be so competitive on the world stage.

Not sure this is the whole of Nominet's view - the sheep are following the shepherd - the shepherd that thinks "they" know best and is sooo desparate /wants an British Empire badge thingy!

That is the only conclusion I can come to as the sheer thought of a .UK is insane after 15 years plus of successful extensions as they stand right now.

 

[Nigel]

I've just downloaded the Welsh consultation form. I'm staggered by the duplicity of Nominet. And I think the way they have worded the .wales consultation compared with the .co.uk consultation opens up Nominet to the charge of discrimination against existing .co.uk registrants. Thank goodness Stephen alerted us to the .wales consultation and all that it entails. Have you seen Nominet's observation in the consultation that running .wales and .cymru could lead to 'increased risk of consumer confusion and cyber squatting". They even kindly ask them a question about this.

Now we all know that 'consumer confusion' between .uk and .co.uk will be far greater. These will be domains both designated as commercial domains. These will be domains using primarily the same language. Yet with us Nominet cannot bring themselves to utter the words 'customer confusion'. It proves that Nominet say whatever is expedient. Here are some excerpts.

Overall Registration Policies

"...There is also an increased risk of consumer confusion and cyber squatting if registrants are not given the option of registering in the alternative domain at the point of registration...."

And a Question they ask on this:

5) If we adopt option 3 what steps could Nominet take to avoid cyber squatters registering in the alternative registry befor the original registrant has a chance to do so?

Another thing. Our consultation was full of loaded questions and we had no chance of considering the form before completing it. Whereas the Welsh had the opportunity of downloading it and emailing it back. Just another co-incidence? or another blatant discrimination.

http://www.domainforwales.org.uk/content/have-your-say

 

[anthony]

I've just downloaded the Welsh consultation form. I'm staggered by the duplicity of Nominet. And I think the way they have worded the .wales consultation compared with the .co.uk consultation opens up Nominet to the charge of discrimination against existing .co.uk registrants. Thank goodness Stephen alerted us to the .wales consultation and all that it entails. Have you seen Nominet's observation in the consultation that running .wales and .cymru could lead to 'increased risk of consumer confusion and cyber squatting". They even kindly ask them a question about this.

Now we all know that 'consumer confusion' between .uk and .co.uk will be far greater. These will be domains both designated as commercial domains. These will be domains using primarily the same language. Yet with us Nominet cannot bring themselves to utter the words 'customer confusion'. It proves that Nominet say whatever is expedient. Here are some excerpts.

Overall Registration Policies

"...There is also an increased risk of consumer confusion and cyber squatting if registrants are not given the option of registering in the alternative domain at the point of registration...."

And a Question they ask on this:

5) If we adopt option 3 what steps could Nominet take to avoid cyber squatters registering in the alternative registry befor the original registrant has a chance to do so?

Another thing. Our consultation was full of loaded questions and we had no chance of considering the form before completing it. Whereas the Welsh had the opportunity of downloading it and emailing it back. Just another co-incidence? or another blatant discrimination.

http://www.domainforwales.org.uk/content/have-your-say

What a shabby and underhand stunt the .uk proposal is turning out to be. It's about time the media big boys got involved in this.

 

[Stephen]

.uk v .wales

I've just downloaded the Welsh consultation form. I'm staggered by the duplicity of Nominet. And I think the way they have worded the .wales consultation compared with the .co.uk consultation opens up Nominet to the charge of discrimination against existing .co.uk registrants. .....

There is more than the consultation form itself:

Consider which .uk or .wales had the best of:

• The Nominet timescales for communication and introduction
• Economic Study report
• Published studies, if look at ICANN appendix
• No security to remove barrier for entry
• No compulsory DNSSEC
• Lower cost (but not totally sure on this yet!)
• Chair person of Nominet getting involved
• Seperate website to promote
• No need for a location address as registrant
• Years of planning and lobbying
• Structure of options to prevent cybersquatting
• Added own specific expert advisory group

I would urge all to look at the seperate .wales thread as Nominet should at the very least more transparent at what they are doing.

Or before long we will be facing the introduction of .England or .Eng with no rights as .co.uk owners, if we don't make a stand.

 

[viceroy]

Radio Advert

What the hell is going on with this lot? I've just heard a radio advert for agreatplacetobe.co.uk by Nominet on Lincs fm this morning. The wording of the advert would make a lot of subscribers to this thread livid I'm sure...

 

[aZooZa]

What the hell is going on with this lot? I've just heard a radio advert for agreatplacetobe.co.uk by Nominet on Lincs fm this morning. The wording of the advert would make a lot of subscribers to this thread livid I'm sure...

Maybe someone could follow this up with the station's news desk.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[DomainManagement]

hmmmm

Any way of getting a copy to listen too ???

 

[viceroy]

Don't worry, I'm onto it... Of the 3 people that I spoke to, only one had heard of Nominet, none had any idea about a consultation and they all assumed that if you're in the uk then you register a .co.uk? They're going to get back to me and I haven't heard the advert again this morning...

 

[Nigel]

Problem is a lot of the Media just don't understand the issues. That's probably why they're not covering this much. But the guy at the Daily Telegraph - the one who has issued some very balanced reports on Nominet -seems to grasp it. He might be worth contacting about Nominet's wacky marketing of .co.uk using agreatplacetobe.co.uk
Christopher Williams, Technology Correspondent, Daily Telegraph.

 

[Nigel]

Advertising Standards Authority can deal with complaints about misleading ads on Radio etc

http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx

 

[aZooZa]

Advertising Standards Authority can deal with complaints about misleading ads on Radio etc

http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx

Great idea!

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Nigel]

The Ad should certainly have given some warning about the consultation and the fact that Nominet have proposed launching a shorter, 'more secure' alternative business domain. I've never seen any such warning on the greatplacetobe.co.uk site. If they were a financial services company they would be fined out of existence for witholding such information. People might also act on this ad today and buy in the aftermarket spending thousands on a .co.uk domain.

 

[websaway]

The Ad should certainly have given some warning about the consultation and the fact that Nominet have proposed launching a shorter, 'more secure' alternative business domain. I've never seen any such warning on the greatplacetobe.co.uk site. If they were a financial services company they would be fined out of existence for witholding such information. People might also act on this ad today and buy in the aftermarket spending thousands on a .co.uk domain.

Common sense tells me that Nominet don't intend launching .uk and are keeping co.uk alive for damage limitation.

 

[Nigel]

Common sense tells me that Nominet don't intend launching .uk and are keeping co.uk alive for damage limitation.

I'd like to think that too - but the fact is there is an ongoing consultation and the new .uk is to be considered by the board in late Feb. I expect that the main registrars are starting to suffer higher than normal lapse ratios and poor numbers of new .co.uk registrations. So Nominet are doing this as a sop to them for their support for the new .uk. I think there is every chance that they'll still try to launch .uk. But this is one crazy, misleading, marketing campaign that might cost them dear.

I did just check every page of the greatplacetobe.co.uk site and there is no warning anywhere about the consultation or Nominet's proposal to introduce a new shorter 'more secure' .uk in the near future. That in itself could also be a breach of the Trades Description Act - Nominets website name 'a great place to be' is obviously a misleading statement, in itself. Quite a good summary on this BBC site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/design/resistantmaterials/designsocialrev10.shtml

 

[viceroy]

Well, going on previous experience of Nominets' common sense policy, anything could be possible...

 

[Stephen]

30th June 2012

30th June 2012, that is that the last date anybody registering a .co.uk or .org.uk will be entitled under the Nominet .uk proposal to have any rights at all for the equivalent .uk string.

There is likely to be over 1,000,000 UK domains registered since that date to the time nominet make .uk available, (if they launch it all) that will have no more rights than anybody else.

Nominet will also not tell anybody wether they even intend to contact the registrants of those domains, why would they have no rights!