.UK Announced

[Sound]

The end user market is relatively 'unaffected by the .uk announcement' only because they don't know about it. I have been receiving regular enquiries on .co.uk domains but getting very few sales. As soon as you tell them about nominet's proposals most never come back. I haven't got the heart to do what nominet does i.e. tell them 'it's a great place to be'. I had a nice email back from a prospective buyer yesterday. No sale but her comments were appreciated:

"Hi Nigel,

thanks a lot for your email and for getting back to me.

I was not aware of the information that you have given me about the .uk extension, so thanks a lot for informing me.

I will take a look at the link you have sent me.

Thanks again and have a lovely afternoon."

Congratulations Nigel on being so honest I really hope it repays itself in the long term.

The same cannot be said for all members of this forum who bang on about the effects that .uk will have to business but don't and wont mention this when approached about domains in their portfolio.

 

[Nigel]

I think Nominet are the ones to blame for this fiasco. They bring out the .uk consultation which immediately caused damage to the .co.uk space. Then three months later they launch a marketing campaign promoting agreatplacetobe.co.uk. and the .co.uk domain space. You couldn't make it up. So if the registry are now actively marketing .co.uk I don't suppose you can blame others for also saying a .co.uk domain name is a 'great' investment. I think they could certainly point to the registry and say 'we're just following their lead'.

I just don't feel comfortable selling a domain that might be a real disappointment to the buyer if Nominet do bring out a shorter 'more secure' alternative. They could certainly feel 'short changed' a year or two down the line.

 

[websaway]

Congratulations Nigel on being so honest I really hope it repays itself in the long term.

The same cannot be said for all members of this forum who bang on about the effects that .uk will have to business but don't and wont mention this when approached about domains in their portfolio.

Depends to a large extent on what the name is. Is there a trademark before the qualifying date etc. etc. Can't get away from the fact you may be buying an investment right and the bidder might well be aware, though he probably wouldn't mention it. I think it's up to the individuals concerned how they handle it.
Can't agree with anyone saying the end user market hasn't been affected, the co.uk market has been hit from the bottom up and from the top down.

But the internet world is still expanding and the new gtld's will die a slow death over the next 10 years leaving .com king.

 

[anthony]

I do wonder what the staff at Nominet really think about what is happening to their company, I would be quite happy to know what their true feelings are, and whether they are in favour or not of the direction things are going in.

 

[websaway]

Interesting.

Picked this up from a blog and hadn't seen it raised on here and if it was I missed it.

someone could register

lloydstsbco.uk
aaispco.uk
hmrcgov.uk, etc, etc.

This could be a phishers' paradise if it goes through

 

[Edwin]

Interesting.

Picked this up from a blog and hadn't seen it raised on here and if it was I missed it.

someone could register

lloydstsbco.uk
aaispco.uk
hmrcgov.uk, etc, etc.

This could be a phishers' paradise if it goes through

Yes, for sure. The phishing issue has already been pointed out to Nominet and publicly, but usually in the context lloydstsb.co.uk vs lloydstsb.uk (high likelihood of confusion). Your examples show the problem's even wider than that!

 

[markb]

Looks like even more defensive registrations that businesses would need to register just to protect their websites, if the proposal went ahead.

 

[Nigel]

Interesting.

Picked this up from a blog and hadn't seen it raised on here and if it was I missed it.

someone could register

lloydstsbco.uk
aaispco.uk
hmrcgov.uk, etc, etc.

This could be a phishers' paradise if it goes through

Hadn't thought about that - of course these examples could cause major problems and fraud but would eventually get sorted by DRS. More worrying would be the confusion on descriptive domains again - which probably form the majority of domains regged with Nominet and they'd be hard to DRS successfully. As 'co' is simply short for company. This could affect every valuable descriptive .co.uk domain with decent traffic. More confusion - more lost traffic and emails - more damage to the .co.uk domain space.

 

[bulkcorn]

Interesting.

Picked this up from a blog and hadn't seen it raised on here and if it was I missed it.

someone could register

lloydstsbco.uk
aaispco.uk
hmrcgov.uk, etc, etc.

This could be a phishers' paradise if it goes through

They may decide to 'police' .uk registrations to prevent such registrations. Wonder what it would cost to do this, and who would bear the cost!

They know how much confusion the release will cause but they seem to be deliberately ignoring the risks and not informing the public about it. They just need to burn this direct.uk hat or award to .co.uk owners!

 

[Marcoose]

They may decide to 'police' .uk registrations to prevent such registrations. Wonder what it would cost to do this, and who would bear the cost!

They know how much confusion the release will cause but they seem to be deliberately ignoring the risks and not informing the public about it. They just need to burn this direct.uk hat or award to .co.uk owners!

Awarding .uk to .co.uk holders isn't the issue in question here though. It's that people with name.co.uk might feel forced to register nameco.uk as well as name.uk (if given the chance) to protect their brand/emails. What if you've got 10, 20, 30+ websites using .co.uk?

 

[websaway]

Awarding .uk to .co.uk holders isn't the issue in question here though. It's that people with name.co.uk might feel forced to register nameco.uk as well as name.uk (if given the chance) to protect their brand/emails. What if you've got 10, 20, 30+ websites using .co.uk?

You might talk marcoose, you started all this.

 

[bulkcorn]

Awarding .uk to .co.uk holders isn't the issue in question here though. It's that people with name.co.uk might feel forced to register nameco.uk as well as name.uk (if given the chance) to protect their brand/emails. What if you've got 10, 20, 30+ websites using .co.uk?

Sorry, I missed the point of the whole .uk matter! :lol:

 

[Nigel]

The 'key stakeholders' consulted did not include any registrars

Just heard back from Eleanor Bradley in connection with the FOI release which showed 'key stakeholders' were consulted about direct.uk back in August 2012. She has confirmed that these were 'key external stakeholders such as government' and did not include any registrars. Here's the important paragraph from her email to me:


"As you would expect, we did consider very carefully the ramifications of introducing direct.uk that included input from some key external stakeholders such as government. However we did not do this in public for obvious reasons prior to the consultation launch, and similarly we do not intend to provide details of who was contacted, but I hope it will reassure you to know that no registrars were sent the consultation in advance."

 

[RobM]

So registrars weren't consulted? Well I feel reassured.

 

[GreyWing]

Bit odd that she wouldn't just reveal who they actually were rather than who they were not. I do believe her when she says no registrars were consulted but just interested, not suspicious, who these other key stake holders would be. If it were ICANN etc then they should just come out and say so. Keeping things secret just puts a iffy smell over things when there is probably nothing to be ashamed of in the first place.

 

[Marcoose]

You might talk marcoose, you started all this.

I've got the mince pies of a 50 year old and had been expecting the dreaded email for months. The timing was kinda spooky though.

 

[Marcoose]

Just heard back from Eleanor Bradley in connection with the FOI release which showed 'key stakeholders' were consulted about direct.uk back in August 2012. She has confirmed that these were 'key external stakeholders such as government' and did not include any registrars. Here's the important paragraph from her email to me:


"As you would expect, we did consider very carefully the ramifications of introducing direct.uk that included input from some key external stakeholders such as government. However we did not do this in public for obvious reasons prior to the consultation launch, and similarly we do not intend to provide details of who was contacted, but I hope it will reassure you to know that no registrars were sent the consultation in advance."

Can we believe anything that comes out of that office?

 

[Brassneck]

Just heard back from Eleanor Bradley in connection with the FOI release which showed 'key stakeholders' were consulted about direct.uk back in August 2012. She has confirmed that these were 'key external stakeholders such as government' and did not include any registrars. Here's the important paragraph from her email to me:


"As you would expect, we did consider very carefully the ramifications of introducing direct.uk that included input from some key external stakeholders such as government. However we did not do this in public for obvious reasons prior to the consultation launch, and similarly we do not intend to provide details of who was contacted, but I hope it will reassure you to know that no registrars were sent the consultation in advance."

August is a terrible time to run any kind of consultative process - did it continue for a while? It's pretty much accepted that many key decision makers are on holiday for much of the month so you would miss a lot of valuable input. Likewise you wouldn't run it across Christmas if you wanted sensible input.

Stephen

 

[TinkyWinky]

August is a terrible time to run any kind of consultative process - Likewise you wouldn't run it across Christmas if you wanted sensible input.

And there's the raison d'être why no one trusts 6 men and a dog (a disservice to dogs - I apologise!) running this consultation process.

This corum decided the rules they wanted, in order to fit the decision they wanted... despite still not being able to supply even one PROPER reason why this is essential for the webspace.

What a watse of everyone's time and money the whole process has been.

The rightful path and choice is actually the elephant in the room - no one wants or needs this - apart from the Nom board.

 

[anthony]

"...we did consider very carefully the ramifications of introducing direct.uk that included input from some key external stakeholders such as government. However we did not do this in public for obvious reasons prior to the consultation launch"

So exactly what were those 'obvious reasons'?

If members we're not viewed as key stakeholders then over such a big issue, then they'll never be viewed as such over any more trivial matters. The statement is ridiculous, what has been the difference regarding the end effect, whether or not they kept it under their hat?