.UK Announced

[websaway]

I think what they mean is that is what they expect Nominet to do IF direct.uk goes ahead. Does not mean Nominet will take any notice!

I suspect they have to take notice of everything that's put in the public domain.
They are already on the back foot.

 

[aZooZa]

who is mrs A Barrow, is she a member ?

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/list_of_domains_names_affected_b

Angie Barrow - Any-Domains.com.

 

[websaway]

Angie Barrow - Any-Domains.com.

Should have recognised her all the geo's

Thanks

 

[Nigel]

I notice the ipo.gov response to nominets proposals said:

"We assume that Nominet will be planning to ensure that the introduction of direct.uk domains does not have a detrimental effect on the reputation of existing domains"

How are they going to achieve that I wonder.

It was a great find getting this info. I googled it and came up with the site ico.gov - which is the Information Commissioners site. Read through the whole response - worth noting that not once do they confirm that they feel there is a need for a shorter .uk domain name. The only issue that they focus on are security issues and that important paragraph above. So I wonder which pile Nominet will put this response in? Fors or Againsts. It should be the againsts on the basis of the fact that the .co.uk has already been damaged, and will be damaged, if direct.uk is introduced. But we all know how Nominet have put a positive slant on every aspect of this consultation - whilst ignoring any negatives.

Of course we all know that the existing domains can be improved from a security point of view. DNSSEC (mentioned in the ico.gov response) is already available at £1 a domain but only a couple of thousand registrants out of 10m have bothered to take it up. So its not a big issue for registrants. Here's the link:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/cons...onsultation_on_a_new_domain_name_service.ashx

 

[websaway]

It was a great find getting this info. I googled it and came up with the site ico.gov - which is the Information Commissioners site. Read through the whole response - worth noting that not once do they confirm that they feel there is a need for a shorter .uk domain name. The only issue that they focus on are security issues and that important paragraph above. So I wonder which pile Nominet will put this response in? Fors or Againsts. It should be the againsts on the basis of the fact that the .co.uk has already been damaged, and will be damaged, if direct.uk is introduced. But we all know how Nominet have put a positive slant on every aspect of this consultation - whilst ignoring any negatives.

Of course we all know that the existing domains can be improved from a security point of view. DNSSEC (mentioned in the ico.gov response) is already available at £1 a domain but only a couple of thousand registrants out of 10m have bothered to take it up. So its not a big issue for registrants. Here's the link:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/cons...onsultation_on_a_new_domain_name_service.ashx

Quite often it's easier to not disagree but agree with proviso's that are obviously impossible to overcome. The art of brevity

 

[Stephen]

Nominet Internet Awards 2013 email

In seperate Acorn thread, but thought it would be interesting for those following .uk:

Just received email from Nominet:

Nominet Internet Awards 2013

"Do you know of a great internet project, which is making a big difference and deserves recognition?"

Let's all vote for avoid.co.uk!

Posting from Systreg about the Nominet email:

I'm not signed up to any of the Nominet mail lists, so why are they spamming me with this internet awards 2013 email I just received

Appears it ok to spam with this crap, yet they wont email all registrants about the consultation.

I wonder if Nominet sent an email to all UK registrars? as for the .uk proposal they only emailed UK registrars that subscribed to nom-announce list.

 

[Stephen]

DNSSEC discount?

Just heads up on what might be comming as Nominet already have done what they need to allow DNSSEC and are currently offering at £1 per domain as opposed to the compulsory .uk proposal.

Nominet may follow the Eurid.eu in that allow they have added DNSSEC for free as not all registrars have taken it up they are now offering a saving on renewal fees of 0.24 EUR per .eu domain name per year by signing your portfolio with DNSSEC.

For major UK registrars it all so could turn into product differentiation if they offer DNSSEC on .co.uk?

Which is best the carrot or the stick?

 

[Nigel]

can we have the same 'consumer confusion' protection as .wales please

Stephen kindly posted the .wales webinar on the .wales thread. I did listen to it and it provides very useful information to show that Nominet do understand consumer confusion issues between similar domains and should never have launched the damaging direct.uk consultation. It also shows that Nominet have two faces when they consider consumer confusion.

In my view, the .wales and .cymru consultation shows they have a caring face, pointing out the dangers of consumer confusion and ways in which it can be minimised. They're going to encourage registrants to register in both .wales and .cymru. Yet with .uk they have a face that looks away, that's stern and not considerate at all. They really don't want to raise the issue. I believe their actions show they couldn't care less about existing registrants with .co.uk domains. They don't want anything to derail their money spinning idea.

In the direct.uk consultation, in the document, and in interviews and conferences, they never once mentioned the consumer confusion of launching a second shorter 'more trusted' 2nd level business domain to run alongside/in front of the existing 3rd level .co.uk. Makes me wonder whether they were all briefed to not mention that subject? How could such an obvious problem, not be raised by one single member of Nominet's staff during a 3 month consultation period?

Here's however what they said on the .wales seminar

http://www.domainforwales.org.uk/content/webinar-registrars

At 4mins
"we want to try and encourage people to register in both to minimise consumer confusion and to help registrants in their online operations"

At 7mins
"...are being proposed at the second rather than at the third level as we have in .uk. That we would place a restriction on selling third level domains in order to decrease consumer confusion and to make sure the domains remain robust and fully under control".

 

[Stephen]

MP meeting

My MP beleives that something is happening at the offices of Ed (Edward) Vaizey at the department of Culture, Communications and Creative Industries and they are looking into the matter.

She also stated that there could be questions raised in the Houses of Parliament next Thursday (does anybody know how to check if questions have been tabled?) about Nominet and .uk.

She also agreed to liaise with Stephen MacPartland MP (Stevenage- Conservative) on the matter of Nominet and .uk.

It was a constructive meeting and a lot of the points, I believe she took on board and was genuinley concerned about the situation. Especially that their is no government oversight and yet if things go wrong, it is the government that will get the blame!

I reminded her that there is not long before the Board meeting on the 26th February when the decision on .uk will be made. Although if Nominet have not taken the opposing views into account, it will be fought, it will have more negative ramifications then to sort out the issues.

 

[GreyWing]

My MP said that similar concerns were also growing. I think that the one sided versions of events being given to Ministers are no longer carrying the weight they once did.

Things like the Barristers report are worth so much as the Ms Cowley can't spin that as someone who holds domain names. They are also aware of other complaints I have made. My MP is the shadow to Ed Vaziey and a cracking guy too. It is important and great that this is not a party political subject and MP's from all parties are helping out.

 

[markb]

Another thing to think about and make the government aware of, is the fact that its not really Domainers that are going to lose out if this went forward. Domainers are mainly the only people that are currently aware of the proposals, and many domainers would actually gain if the proposal went ahead, as they have their own tags and can automatically register the best domain names.

The main people that are going to lose out are businesses, both small, medium and large businesses, and these are the people that are currently unaware of the proposals and thats why you wont see many of them complaining.

For nominet to make up the argument that its ony a small minority of domainers that are kicking up a fuss and complaining because of their own personal agendas is absolutely rubbish and nominet are fully aware of this. But I bet you wont see them telling the government about this fact, they are withholding information on purpose from both the government and millions of businesses, obviously for their own personal agendas.

 

[Nigel]

Another thing to think about and make the government aware of, is the fact that its not really Domainers that are going to lose out if this went forward. Domainers are mainly the only people that are currently aware of the proposals, and many domainers would actually gain if the proposal went ahead, as they have their own tags and can automatically register the best domain names.

The main people that are going to lose out are businesses, both small, medium and large businesses, and these are the people that are currently unaware of the proposals and thats why you wont see many of them complaining.

For nominet to make up the argument that its ony a small minority of domainers that are kicking up a fuss and complaining because of their own personal agendas is absolutely rubbish and nominet are fully aware of this. But I bet you wont see them telling the government about this fact, they are withholding information on purpose from both the government and millions of businesses, obviously for their own personal agendas.

Totally agree - Very few small businesses have any idea this is going on. They'll be a lot of anger if it gets the go-ahead. When tens of thousands of small businesses with descriptive .co.uk domains realise they've been fleeced.

I wouldn't be surprised to see demonstrations outside Nominet HQ.
And a lot more questions in Parliament.

 

[websaway]

a question for any trademark wizards
If nominet's proposals went through, how far would a trademark stretch to entitlement on new .uk registrations, would the trademark have to be exact or could someone with a trademark say "park" lay claim to holidaypark.uk

 

[markb]

a question for any trademark wizards
If nominet's proposals went through, how far would a trademark stretch to entitlement on new .uk registrations, would the trademark have to be exact or could someone with a trademark say "park" lay claim to holidaypark.uk

My understanding is that it would have to be an exact match. Otherwise any company with a trademark that included the word "dogs" would be able to join an auction for the domain "dogs.uk".

 

[anthony]

My MP said that similar concerns were also growing. I think that the one sided versions of events being given to Ministers are no longer carrying the weight they once did...

What support, one way or another, are we likely to see from those MPs who have had expenses paid by for them in the past?

 

[markb]

What support, one way or another, are we likely to see from those MPs who have had expenses paid by for them in the past?

People who raise legitimate concerns to their local MP's will receive full support as that is what MP's are there for. I thought nominet had just paid a few expenses for MP's who where going to nominet conferences. I very much doubt that MP's would ignore peoples concerns just because of this.

 

[Stephen]

development NOT written off to the profit and loss account

Concern on change of Nominet accounting policy in 2012?

If you look at all previous published Nominet accounts you will see from the 2011 accounts page 35 Accounting Policies : section “Research and development expenditure”: states “Expenditure on research and development is written off to the profit and loss account in the year in which it is incurred”

Accounts can be found :

http://www.nominet.org.uk/whoweare/annual-reports

If Nominet change the accounting policy now by capitalizing expenditure rather than writing it off, which may have the effect of distributing more surplus to Nominet Trust than otherwise would be the case. Plus there is more profits for bonuses etc.

Nominet intend to capitalize .wales costs and some other expenditure.
Nominet website http://www.domainforwales.org.uk/content/questions-about-consultation states “However, the costs of developing .cymru and .wales will be capitalised and appropriately recorded in our published accounts along with other Nominet development projects.”

Nominet have replied to my concerns about such a change with the following:

The capitalisation of development expenditure is a change in accounting policy in 2012, which has been authorised by the Board following consideration and recommendation by the Audit Committee. This change has been prompted by the upcoming changes in the accounting standards regime, which will result in Nominet adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (EU) in future years. IFRS (EU) requires the capitalisation of development costs where certain criteria are satisfied, this treatment also being permitted by current UK accounting standards. The treatment adopted in the 2012 financial statements is a change in accounting policy and will be disclosed as such.

The application of this change in accounting policy has been reviewed by the company's external auditors, who have concluded that the application is compliant with both the current UK accounting standards and IFRS (EU), and in addition presents a true and fair view for users of the financial statements. The 2012 financial statements will be distributed to members along with the Notice of AGM.

The level of the donation to Nominet Trust is considered and approved each financial year by the Board. The Board consider a number of factors in determining the donation, including both the current cash position and the projected cashflow of the business in future years. As the development costs have already generated a cash outflow, the change in the treatment of development costs does not impact on the cash position of the business and is not therefore material to the calculation of any donation to the Trust.

I think this matter should be brought up at the AGM, as it is not prudent for a not-for-profit organization to make this change, I cannot see an upside for Nominet?

 

[GreyWing]

Have a look at the dossier http://www.that.co.uk/nominet_files.pdf page 20, it goes on about other accounting irregularities in switching accounting methods....

In my opinion any EGM would have to request that the books be audited by an independent organisation (not a small one neither, a large auditor) and that it goes back sometime.

 

[DarrenTSO]

I can see why the .wales would be capitalized and then written off over a period of years - because after the initial investment of capital, Nominet "own" .wales/.cymru, so the value of that asset (or the control of that asset) will be listed on the balance sheet. Capitalizing development like this represents a truer picture of what the investment or spending actually is for.

 

[GreyWing]

My post above is that an audit be done using one accounting method for the past years. That way we can see true % changes from year to year. To me it isn't massively important which accounting method they use, as long as they pick one and stick to it. Jumping from method to method whilst maybe done for legitimate reasons could also be seen to muddy the water.