.UK Announced

[Edwin]

So you couldn't be tempted to part with the pair for any money?

How can I possibly answer that? What I can say with 100% confidence is they're not for sale nor do I intend to put them up for sale. I can also say that I doubt anyone would pay what it would take for that position to change (think Lottery-winning amounts)

 

[thecat]

How can I possibly answer that? What I can say with 100% confidence is they're not for sale nor do I intend to put them up for sale. I can also say that I doubt anyone would pay what it would take for that position to change (think Lottery-winning amounts)

Would you be upset if someone bought maps.uk?

 

[Edwin]

Getting back on topic, I see that Nominet have already deleted the FAQ they'd been building up with further detail about specific aspects of the direct.uk consultation/proposal (as it then stood). Talk about erasing history!

 

[Pred]

good article by Ron Jackson adding his weight to debate

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2013/dailyposts/20130228.htm

British flags image from Bigstock

A lot of good news crossed our desk in the past 24 hours. It was especially good to see sanity prevail when Nominet, the administrator of Great Britain's iconic .co.uk domain extension, at least temporarily, back away from its widely reviled plan to sell .uk domains (a move that would instantly devalue the millions of .co.uk domains that have already been registered). The scheme to sell .uk domains (at grossly inflated prices) ran aground after a wave of complaints from current .co.uk registrants washed over Nominet. .co.uk is still not out of the woods yet, as Nominet said it will continue

to study ways to sell .uk separately that would cause less damage to its existing customer base. As always, vigilance will be in order here for every business and individual invested in the well established and widely respected .co.uk namespace.

personally I didn't see it as time to get out tickertape as Nominet's board clearly have become moneymad and powermad
I think they really will just change a few things round and try to push for it again
of course they should email all owners and ask them to vote
but considering this so called democracy we live in, not one of us has ever been asked to take part in a referendum and this is National concerns
they both don't ask for the same reason, because they know what the answer will be and they don't want that, they both have the same agenda, self serving
do a referendum in past 10 years for getting out of europe and it would be overwhelming to get out for example

 

[Nigel]

Thanks for posting that link to DNJournal and that excellent article by Ron Jackson. He described the situation perfectly. Let's hope the 6 members on the board (who are making the decisions on this) read this and take in what this highly respected publisher and editor is saying.

 

[getmein]

Piers White wants it (Registrar conference, stated so). No amount of campaigning is going to change his mind. If the board is at odds with its members they (some or all) need to go.

It's just bonkers, that having presided over a laughable consultation (with questions designed to elicit a pre-determined response) that the board should continue to create uncertainty. In any large organisation/company - a board that had so clearly put their weight behind a proposal of this size that has failed, would quite rightly look to resign of their own volition (or face being ousted by shareholders/stakeholders).

There doesn't seem to be any sense of individual or collective responsibility from the board about their actions.

If this is going to be reconsidered (which I find egregious) it shouldn't be done with a board composed of members who are desperate to find any way to push this through. In my opinion the framework for the initial consultation suggests the board have self interest in .uk over and above their role to protect their existing customers.

 

[foz]

It's just bonkers, that having presided over a laughable consultation (with questions designed to elicit a pre-determined response) that the board should continue to create uncertainty. In any large organisation/company - a board that had so clearly put their weight behind a proposal of this size that has failed, would quite rightly look to resign of their own volition (or face being ousted by shareholders/stakeholders).

There doesn't seem to be any sense of individual or collective responsibility from the board about their actions.

If this is going to be reconsidered (which I find egregious) it shouldn't be done with a board composed of members who are desperate to find any way to push this through. In my opinion the framework for the initial consultation suggests the board have self interest in .uk over and above their role to protect their existing customers.

It just makes one think that the hidden bonus structure is at play here, otherwise why go against the people.

 

[bulkcorn]

It's just bonkers, that having presided over a laughable consultation (with questions designed to elicit a pre-determined response) that the board should continue to create uncertainty. In any large organisation/company - a board that had so clearly put their weight behind a proposal of this size that has failed, would quite rightly look to resign of their own volition (or face being ousted by shareholders/stakeholders).

There doesn't seem to be any sense of individual or collective responsibility from the board about their actions.

If this is going to be reconsidered (which I find egregious) it shouldn't be done with a board composed of members who are desperate to find any way to push this through. In my opinion the framework for the initial consultation suggests the board have self interest in .uk over and above their role to protect their existing customers.

Anyone else think this board has done enough for Nominet? It's high time they moved on to better things in organisations that have nothing to do with domains/uk webspace at all!

 

[getmein]

It just makes one think that the hidden bonus structure is at play here, otherwise why go against the people.

I think the banking crisis illustrated perfectly what happens when you create the wrong/perverse incentives.

If you're right (and I suspect you are) then the prospect of money/gongs continues to drive the proposal - so things haven't changed nearly as much as they should have, following the consultation.

 

[anthony]

It's just bonkers, that having presided over a laughable consultation (with questions designed to elicit a pre-determined response) that the board should continue to create uncertainty...

The message it sends out is that they know they've taken a pasting over all the technical and commercial merits they tried to put forward as justification, but in spite of this they are still fundamentally determined to drive it through sooner or later.

They'll simply be licking their wounds for now until they can work out another way of getting it through!

 

[websaway]

The message it sends out is that they know they've taken a pasting over all the technical and commercial merits they tried to put forward as justification, but in spite of this they are still fundamentally determined to drive it through sooner or later.

They'll simply be licking their wounds for now until they can work out another way of getting it through!

But there is no way and they've fired all their bullets.

It's just facesaving.

 

[websaway]

Nominet sent me an email saying:

"It was clear from the feedback that there was not a consensus of support for the direct.uk proposals as presented, with some concerns cutting across different stakeholder groups. Although shorter domains (e.g. nominet.uk rather than nominet.org.uk) were considered desirable, many respondents felt that the release mechanism did not give enough weighting to existing registrants, and could lead to confusion if they could not obtain the corresponding domain.
Over the coming months, this work will explore:"
A revised phased release mechanism based largely on the prior registrations of domains in existing third levels within .uk and in which contention between different applicants for the same domain name should be reduced or eliminated.

dictionary describes corresponding as:
1.
identical in all essentials or respects: corresponding fingerprints.

2.
similar in position, purpose, form, etc.:.

If I had any doubts about whether Nominet sincerely intended co.uk and .uk to live alongside each other as seperate entities this dispells those doubts.
They simply want every holder of a co.uk to buy a .uk as another income stream
.
Am I dreaming this, it reminds me of a bad door to door salesman trying to sell you something you don't want or need and keeps coming back withthe same stupid arguments to genuine objections to the sale.

 

[DomainManagement]

It just makes one think that the hidden bonus structure is at play here, otherwise why go against the people.

Please remember Bonuses are Stylistic , and do not need to be recorded
officially, oh sorry or is that Just Ms Cowley`s Wishes and past Actions


Hmmm.... Stylistic Bonuses