.UK Announced

[Stephen]

.. I don't think that they are accepting things at face value anymore, ....

I hope they press hard for real complete full answers and look past the superficial answers Nominet often provide.

Full transparency has to be the way Nominet must go now after making such a mess with .uk.

 

[Nigel]

Lets hope that does mean they are doing something about it behind the scenes. It needs to be taken very seriously as the proposal has massive implications to every business that trades online or has an online presence.

Agree with that. At the end of the day we've all got to do what we can. Even if we lose the battle - you can live with it if you've at least made an effort. I would urge any of you who haven't yet written a letter, or spoken to your MP do so now. It's not too late. You could write a letter to Ed Vaizey or your MP this weekend. It doesn't have to be long. A few key facts - what have you got to lose. Every letter received and every MP who gets involved will be noticed. It might be worth asking your MP to liaise with Stephen McPartland - might help him get the debate in Parliament that he is seeking.

 

[websaway]

Agree with that. At the end of the day we've all got to do what we can. Even if we lose the battle - you can live with it if you've at least made an effort. I would urge any of you who haven't yet written a letter, or spoken to your MP do so now. It's not too late. You could write a letter to Ed Vaizey or your MP this weekend. It doesn't have to be long. A few key facts - what have you got to lose. Every letter received and every MP who gets involved will be noticed. It might be worth asking your MP to liaise with Stephen McPartland - might help him get the debate in Parliament that he is seeking.

I must say that this from Edwins efforts bothers me slightly.

"In Conclusion
I urge Nominet to take this revised proposal on board, and consider adopting it - or a
close variant of it - as the basis of their .uk allocation process. I also urge them to bring
proposed .uk pricing in line with .co.uk registration fees, and to decouple the more
esoteric security and technical services from the base domain name registration. "

He is influential and people mostly remember the conclusion to a long argument.

 

[Edwin]

I must say that this from Edwins efforts bothers me slightly.

"In Conclusion
I urge Nominet to take this revised proposal on board, and consider adopting it - or a
close variant of it - as the basis of their .uk allocation process. I also urge them to bring
proposed .uk pricing in line with .co.uk registration fees, and to decouple the more
esoteric security and technical services from the base domain name registration. "

Why? Do you have a better proposal, in the event that direct.uk does go ahead?

I will repeat myself for what feels like the hundredth time: my first and strongest preference is for direct.uk NOT TO PROCEED AT ALL.

I have made that extremely clear on the website, in my position paper, and in my comments on blogs, forums, websites etc. as well as in the face-to-face meetings (witnesses will tell you that I rammed that to the very top of the agenda before we even got to implementation specifics in every single meeting!) and on Twitter.

However, I also believe in the value of having a "Plan B". Call it the "emergency chute" if you like, for use if the main parachute (="no direct.uk at all") doesn't open.

My revised proposal is that Plan B.

It's not perfect - the only perfect solution is no .uk at all (as I have said so many times). But it's a LOT better than Nominet's own proposal!

Of course, if you have an even better way of implementing .uk, then by all means please put it forward. But I've taken quite a bit of stick over my suggested proposal since I advanced it in November, yet frankly nobody's ever been able to counter it with something that's FAIRER ALL ROUND (not "fairer to domainers", but fairer to ALL valid interests). Saying "direct.uk shouldn't go ahead - period" but then having no fallback whatsoever in case it ultimately does go ahead anyway is not a valid stance in my eyes.

Again, and hopefully for the last time: my proposal is NOT my first choice. I have never said, suggested, hinted or implied that it was. It was/is however far better than Nominet's own proposal assuming as a starting point that Nominet's conclusion is that .uk has to go ahead in some form.

 

[Nigel]

I hope they press hard for real complete full answers and look past the superficial answers Nominet often provide.

Full transparency has to be the way Nominet must go now after making such a mess with .uk.

I agree that there needs to be transparency. Nominet boast that they're open, honest and transparent - but that claim is not backed up by revelations last year. I think they'll need to be wholesale changes at the top of Nominet. They can't carry on like this. I say this having read three devastating reports into the conduct of Nominet in recent years. The BBC and Daily Telegraph don't publish reports like this unless they feel there are real problems at the heart of the organisation. I think everyone needs to sit down and read through the following reports carefully. How is it that they've been able to carry on like normal? Have you ever heard of a 'non profit' set up for the public good acting like this? I haven't - it's time something was done.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19550952
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...cked-by-disability-discrimination-ruling.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...ion-over-FoI-avoidance-in-Nominet-emails.html

 

[websaway]

Why? Do you have a better proposal, in the event that direct.uk does go ahead?

I will repeat myself for what feels like the hundredth time: my first and strongest preference is for direct.uk NOT TO PROCEED AT ALL.

I have made that extremely clear on the website, in my position paper, and in my comments on blogs, forums, websites etc. as well as in the face-to-face meetings (witnesses will tell you that I rammed that to the very top of the agenda before we even got to implementation specifics in every single meeting!) and on Twitter.

However, I also believe in the value of having a "Plan B". Call it the "emergency chute" if you like, for use if the main parachute (="no direct.uk at all") doesn't open.

My revised proposal is that Plan B.

It's not perfect - the only perfect solution is no .uk at all (as I have said so many times). But it's a LOT better than Nominet's own proposal!

Of course, if you have an even better way of implementing .uk, then by all means please put it forward. But I've taken quite a bit of stick over my suggested proposal since I advanced it in November, yet frankly nobody's ever been able to counter it with something that's FAIRER ALL ROUND (not "fairer to domainers", but fairer to ALL valid interests). Saying "direct.uk shouldn't go ahead - period" but then having no fallback whatsoever in case it ultimately does go ahead anyway is not a valid stance in my eyes.

Again, and hopefully for the last time: my proposal is NOT my first choice. I have never said, suggested, hinted or implied that it was. It was/is however far better than Nominet's own proposal assuming as a starting point that Nominet's conclusion is that .uk has to go ahead in some form.

I don't have another proposal because I don't think they should sell the uk business namespace twice and any proposal to do so may look like an endorsement of the introduction of .uk. Your proposals would benefit me but It's not about me it's the entire principle of selling the uk namespace twice.
The last thing you write or say is the thing that has most impact.

 

[Stephen]

Plan B

... But I've taken quite a bit of stick over my suggested proposal since I advanced it in November, yet frankly nobody's ever been able to counter it with something that's FAIRER ALL ROUND (not "fairer to domainers", but fairer to ALL valid interests). Saying "direct.uk shouldn't go ahead - period" but then having no fallback whatsoever in case it ultimately does go ahead anyway is not a valid stance in my eyes.

Again, and hopefully for the last time: my proposal is NOT my first choice. I have never said, suggested, hinted or implied that it was. It was/is however far better than Nominet's own proposal assuming as a starting point that Nominet's conclusion is that .uk has to go ahead in some form.

I believe Nominet have had a variety of alternative proposals put to them, some of which appear in this thread.

I agree that due to the consultation process method employed by Nominet, it was wise to put a plan B in the response (sometimes with a big note saying don't take this as my first choice!), however I'm also pleased that some respondents just stuck to their view of no introduction of .uk at all, as it strengthens the message to Nominet, that .uk is of real concern and views vary.

I disagree with Edwins plan "B" view because the premise it is built on is wrong, namely .org.uk owners have rights to .uk. It is clear that .org.uk can continue in that namespace (.org.uk) even with a .uk being introduced, .co.uk could not! that is why .co.uk owners should get 100% linked rights with the equivalent .uk domain (at no more cost and with no extra security) and this would eradicate all other arguments I have seen put forward.

 

[anthony]

...I disagree with Edwins plan "B" view because the premise it is built on is wrong, namely .org.uk owners have rights to .uk. It is clear that .org.uk can continue in that namespace (.org.uk) even with a .uk being introduced, .co.uk could not! that is why .co.uk owners should get 100% linked rights with the equivalent .uk domain (at no more cost and with no extra security) and this would eradicate all other arguments I have seen put forward.

Sorry, but that is illogical and flawed. Observing the cause and effect of .uk on the different extensions is no substitute for rights.

 

[Systreg]

Full transparency has to be the way Nominet must go now after making such a mess with .uk.

This was a tweet by the Dalai Lama a few days ago, Nominet, take note:

If you are honest, truthful, and transparent, people trust you. If people trust you, you have no grounds for fear, suspicion or jealousy.

[edit]

That was my 5000th post

 

[Stephen]

No rights

Sorry, but that is illogical and flawed. Observing the cause and effect of .uk on the different extensions is no substitute for rights.

Nobody not even Trademark holders, .com registrants, limited companies, businesses, .co.uk owners, UK governement, .org.uk holders, .me.uk and previous owners of domain names has legal rights over any yet to be released domain.

In the world of no real legal rights for anybody, maybe it should be first come first served for all .uk domains?

Future ownership of a newly released domain will be based on what is considered "right" by the powers that control the release of that domain tld.

Many factors such as precedent, time, existing situation, future situation, objectives, history, pressure, perception, promises, common sense, personal agenda's, prior marketing, real world, projections, alternatives, law, t & c's, rules, safety, fairness, trends, 80/20 rule, simplicity, debate, concensious, fear and money with many more will determine what is "right".


p.s. Congratulations Systreg on your wise but true 5,000th post, live long and prosper!

 

[foz]

That was my 5000th post

That's pretty good considering your joining date. 8)

 

[Marcoose]

Under the current proposal, if I acquire a .co.uk now, would that put me in a position to acquire the .uk? This isn't a dropped domain - I'll be buying it off of someone else.

I'm guessing the answer to that question is no but just wanted to check as I wasn't sure if the June or July cut off applied to new registrations.

 

[Stephen]

Under the current proposal, if I acquire a .co.uk now, would that put me in a position to acquire the .uk? This isn't a dropped domain - I'll be buying it off of someone else.

I'm guessing the answer to that question is no but just wanted to check as I wasn't sure if the June or July cut off applied to new registrations.

The proposal as it stands is the cut off applies to just new registrations.

Any old enough acquired domains will not be caught by that clause, however there is still the "useage clause" in proposal, which is not defined as to what it exactly means but to have rights as a .co.uk it would need to be used.

 

[markb]

The proposal as it stands is the cut off applies to just new registrations.

Any acquired domains will not be caught by that clause, however there is still the "useage clause" in proposal, which is not defined as to what it exactly means but to have rights as a .co.uk it would need to be used.

You should have rights just by owning it. You own a domain for a reason and you could have spent thousands building a site that has yet to go live. I presume by submitting evidence of your work behind the scenes to nominet would show evidence of usage.

 

[splashweb]

I wouldn't expect to have any rights to the matching address just through ownership in a new space. But in the case of direct.uk I would, as clearly it's a competing space, as proposed.

Rights through use have to be just that, if you haven't had content up and running then you haven't been using it. You should ideally be looking to get registered rights in place before going live, which would protect you to some extent if you'd been unlucky and not quite got to that point.

 

[Marcoose]

The proposal as it stands is the cut off applies to just new registrations.

Any acquired domains will not be caught by that clause, however there is still the "useage clause" in proposal, which is not defined as to what it exactly means but to have rights as a .co.uk it would need to be used.

Thanks for info, Stephen.

 

[markb]

So, if for some reason, nominet did manage to push ahead with the direct.uk implementation against all odds. Companies like mars, that own generic domains like pets.co.uk , but dont use the domain, they just redirect to their main website, would lose out on the pets.uk domain. Would this then just be picked up by a domainer who would then sell the domain off to a company like mars for a profit?

 

[Stephen]

prior use?

So, if for some reason, nominet did manage to push ahead with the direct.uk implementation against all odds. Companies like mars, that own generic domains like pets.co.uk , but dont use the domain, they just redirect to their main website, would lose out on the pets.uk domain. Would this then just be picked up by a domainer who would then sell the domain off to a company like mars for a profit?

That is certainly one interpretation, on how they phrased the matter in their proposal and its possible consequences.

The extract from the Nominet .uk proposal was:

The section was in K. Phased Release and Rights Managment
Phase 2: Unregistered Rights Sunrise
Period during which holders of registered and unregistered trademarks can apply for their corresponding domain name(s) insofar as they have not been registered at an earlier stage.
Domain names registered at the third level may constitute an unregistered right provided evidence of use could be shown prior to the qualiyfing date.

There was no further expanation of what was meant by "prior use" or any precedent in Nominet previous development that I could find.

On pushing the point with Nominet they advised that they had not decided what "prior use" was and they would look for feedback from the consultation as to evolve what it might mean. Even though they had not asked a specific question asking people for their views on what might be suitable.

I believe not everybody completing the form would have known Nominet were seeking views of what would be suitable "prior use".

 

[bulkcorn]

So, if for some reason, nominet did manage to push ahead with the direct.uk implementation against all odds. Companies like mars, that own generic domains like pets.co.uk , but dont use the domain, they just redirect to their main website, would lose out on the pets.uk domain. Would this then just be picked up by a domainer who would then sell the domain off to a company like mars for a profit?

If Nominet went by their current proposals, any person/company/domainer who has a registered right for 'pets' would get the domain pets.uk, and that is not going to be as straightforward as proposed, given that several persons may own registered rights to 'pets'. This only one of the many unreasonable and unnecessary conditions for getting a .uk proposed by Nominet.

Majority of domainers prefer that pets.uk goes to the owner of pets.co.uk, rather than being auctioned off between several possible owners of a registered right to 'pets', for the many valid reasons that have cited severally on and off this thread.

 

[markb]

I would prefer it if the domain pets.uk went directly to mars who own pets.co.uk , regardless of wether they have a site on it, or just a holding page, or a re-direct. They obviously paid good money for the pets.co.uk domain and may actually build a site on it in the future. For the pets.uk domain to be given to anyone else would just be wrong.