.uk Shelved

[scottb]

How would you propose anyone being able to offer a new second level .uk extension if widespread second level migration to second level domain registrations was rolled out? The second level would be full of registrations. All existing registrations are at the third level at the moment. It is impossible to successfully have the ability to offer new third level extensions and simultaneously allow open registrations at the second level.

Private companies could sell subdomains under eg .shop.uk.
Or nominet could reserve a few for future official use.
I just don't think that anyone would want them, as the direct.uk would become the most desirable extension.

So worth the exercise and the £millions repainting, reprinting and readvertising when right now there appears to be no problem with people being able to find web sites and other services at .co.uk domain names because .co.uk is already the pinnacle .uk extension?

We've coped for fifteen+ years very well and .co.uk is established and understood.

Rebranding would be a hassle, but it would be entirely optional if it was simply used as a redirect to get to the existing .co.uk
The whole proposal only makes sense if .co.uk and direct.uk end up at the same site.

Given time, I suspect that most site owners would eventually prefer to migrate their branding to the direct.uk, especially when big companies use it in advertising all over the place.
At that point, their .co.uk would point to the direct.uk, so users will still end up at the right place.

In the past, I have found myself saying 'mysite.uk' when describing it to friends, knowing that everyone understands I really mean 'mysite.co.uk'

It's only 3 extra letters, but it is extra hassle to type and describe - in comparison to how things should have been from the start.
To me, it just seems like a good chance to correct things, and bring the uk namespace into line with what is going to be the new standard soon.

I would prefer an automatic instant 'upgrade' at registry level, but no doubt nominet will find a way to make users pay twice, if they decide that .co.uk owners will get the rights after all.

 

[Stephen]

Evolution

Private companies could sell subdomains under eg .shop.uk.
Or nominet could reserve a few for future official use.
I just don't think that anyone would want them, as the direct.uk would become the most desirable extension.

Rebranding would be a hassle, but it would be entirely optional if it was simply used as a redirect to get to the existing .co.uk
The whole proposal only makes sense if .co.uk and direct.uk end up at the same site.

Given time, I suspect that most site owners would eventually prefer to migrate their branding to the direct.uk, especially when big companies use it in advertising all over the place.
At that point, their .co.uk would point to the direct.uk, so users will still end up at the right place.

In the past, I have found myself saying 'mysite.uk' when describing it to friends, knowing that everyone understands I really mean 'mysite.co.uk'

It's only 3 extra letters, but it is extra hassle to type and describe - in comparison to how things should have been from the start.
To me, it just seems like a good chance to correct things, and bring the uk namespace into line with what is going to be the new standard soon.

I would prefer an automatic instant 'upgrade' at registry level, but no doubt nominet will find a way to make users pay twice, if they decide that .co.uk owners will get the rights after all.

Agree but there would be really little extra cost to Nominet if they removed security features from .uk, hence no charge to users. A great way to use the Nominet annual surplus funds.

It it like the evolution from users typing in:

www.sitetovisit.co.uk
to
sitetovisit.co.uk
next should be
sitetovisit.uk

with the .co.uk redicteding web visitors and emails to .uk OR being left that any .uk gets redirected to the equivalent .co.uk, as it should be the choice of the client.

 

[monaghan]

It's only 3 extra letters, but it is extra hassle to type and describe - in comparison to how things should have been from the start.
To me, it just seems like a good chance to correct things, and bring the uk namespace into line with what is going to be the new standard soon.

I really don't buy the "it's shorter" argument, if that was really the case, then why are there so many long new TLD's being put forward in the new batch?

 

[Jump]

I think second level is good for all ccTLDs but they need to be grandfathered.

Can anyone answer this question? I have read the report document as to the consultation.

But one thing that stands out is that Nominet is committed to "growth" of .uk. It is a stated strategic objective mentioned two or more times in the report.

Why?

I can understand Verisign saying that. But Nominet? Why is it their charter to grow.

I am in Australia and I used to really respect Nominet. No more, after this fiasco.

I also don't think it is the end of it. They'll come up with a new plan in my view.

 

[Jump]

By the way, in addition to my above post, congratulations and many thanks, sincerely, to all the people in the UK who worked on fighting this.

 

[Stephen]

volume of the disent

After reading the summary of the results and Nominets interpretation of them and letting it all sink in.

My conculsion is I am so grateful for all those domainers (which I suspect was the largest identifiable group) who took the time to complete the consultation form and provide feedback to them as I believe it was the volume of the dissent not simply the quality of any observations about the flaws in the .uk proposal that finally made Nominet back off from introducing .uk in the way they proposed.

So my sincere thanks goes to all those that completed the consultation and the many here that encouraged others to do so.

 

[websaway]

I think most people have raised concerns about the problems for current co.uk holders.

It occurs to me that in the future someone who has little knowledge of the domain business registers a .uk name not knowing that a co.uk name is already in existence, a couple of years down the road when the new registrant finds out about the identification problems it's causing, they look to buy the co.uk only to find that it will cost xxx or even xxxx dollars to buy it.
Or the same new registrant finds a name that is not already registered under co.uk ( bingo ) but does not register the co.uk ( why should he ?) only to find in a couple of minutes after he registers his .uk someone else has registered the co.uk equivelant and is now educating the new registrant on the reasons he needs to acquire it.

"Are they really thinking that the co.uk could live alongside the .uk as business namespace and that they can find a way to make it workable when the basic fundamentals are so blatently problematic"

 

[scottb]

....
"Are they really thinking that the co.uk could live alongside the .uk as business namespace and that they can find a way to make it workable when the basic fundamentals are so blatently problematic"

Agreed. It is simply common sense for .uk to simply be interchangable with .co.uk if it is introduced.
The possibility of different owners would be ludicrous.
.co.uk is the current mainstream uk domain, and there will be cross traffic and emails for years to come.

Some folks are celebrating that direct.uk is dead in the water, but it seems to me like a missed opportunity
if it isn't made available as an option for co.uk owners and the vast majority of UK internet users.

We are soon going to have .Scot .Wales .London etc
Third level domains are going to seem like an anachronism in a couple of years, at least for mainstream use.

It just seems like a good time to let the vast majority of .co.uk site owners or surfers use the shorter option if they so choose.

 

[Stephen]

5% different owners is too much!

Agreed. It is simply common sense for .uk to simply be interchangable with .co.uk if it is introduced.
The possibility of different owners would be ludicrous.
.co.uk is the current mainstream uk domain, and there will be cross traffic and emails for years to come.
Some folks are celebrating that direct.uk is dead in the water, but it seems to me like a missed opportunity
if it isn't made available as an option for co.uk owners and the vast majority of UK internet users.
We are soon going to have .Scot .Wales .London etc
Third level domains are going to seem like an anachronism in a couple of years, at least for mainstream use.
It just seems like a good time to let the vast majority of .co.uk site owners or surfers use the shorter option if they so choose.

Agree - the only way not to have different owners of .co.uk and .uk is to link them 100% so it is not the odd one string that is different owners, as that would lead to a false sense of security and that would be a smaller scale problem of what the majority of people objected to but it still would be a problem that common sense should tell you to avoid.

Nominet have stated:

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.

From the above they have still not grasped it but when they see the difficulties of giving some to trade mark holders and some to .org.uk holders the .uk over the .co.uk and lets not forget the Nominet preferred option of letting all those parties fight for it via auction - that costly method is not so popular to say the least with the .co.uk owners!

Lets hope Nominet start to see a real way forward and look to solve the issues/problems of the genuine .org.uk owners and trademark holders in a different way than splitting the .co.uk and .uk, as there are several other ways to acheive those goals.

 

[foz]

If their was no disruption, cost, or conflict migrating from .co.uk to .uk what is the appeal of it all? Is the removal of three digits from the domain string that desirable?

 

[Stephen]

.co.uk v .uk

If their was no disruption, cost, or conflict migrating from .co.uk to .uk what is the appeal of it all? Is the removal of three digits from the domain string that desirable?

Yes for some businesses it would be desirable and worth the cost of rebranding from .co.uk to .uk.

To start with those that deal with visitors outside the UK,
those that want to look trendy,
those that have not yet started their web presence
and those giants like BBC.co.uk (UK's most popular website) might even not go over to .BBC if they have BBC.uk.

Although I dont think it would be the majority that would use it in the first year (maybe only 10%) the trend would be for its use to increase over time until website addresses were replaced by something else.

If they both resolve to one owners website and they choose which one to lead with there is no cost or disruption to .co.uk owners and they have the option to move when and if, it suits them.

As long as Nominet doesnt charge anything more for owning .co.uk and the equivalent .uk string and why should they when their internal costs are already met and they already produce a huge surplus and the cost its implementation would not be large or ongoing.

It is only when Nominet start trying to be "fair as they see it" to a very tiny miniority of trade mark cases (they have never provided the size of the problem or listed them as Edwin did when he made his case for a change to .uk) where it would look unfair but I would say it is probably unfair they dont have the .co.uk, why not concentrate on resolving those cases by changes to drop catching, money and DRS action to get them the .uk were appropriate and then we all know were we stand going forward.

Also the only other reason not to release .uk at all as far as I'm concerned is the valid point of view of Invincible (I still don't agree with him) who has warned us many times that launching .uk in any form would prevent the UK namespace from effectively launching any other 3rd level domains such as .hamphire.uk or .print.uk etc.

 

[Edwin]

Here's an idea that I've not seen proposed anywhere. I'm just throwing it out there to see what people think. Here goes...

What if the .co.uk and .uk were an automatic set, 2-for-the-price-of-1. When you register one, you get the other, and they are totally 100% inseparable. In other words, they register together, expire together, get transferred together, etc. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a .co.uk without a .uk, and vice-versa (though they don't necessarily both have to resolve - you could have 0, 1 or 2 names resolving - that's up to you and your nameservers).

Nominet could probably bump the price of the pair up by a pound or two per year without getting too greatly pilloried. In other words, this new "combined" domain for the UK would cost say £4/year+VAT. And from Nominet's point of view it's just data in a database so their ongoing cost is very, very close to zero. Since there's still only 1 renewal, 1 transfer etc. per "pair" there's no extra customer support or communication required, just a little fiddling in their systems to make sure that whatever happens (change of registrant, different contact info, marking as not required, transfers, etc.) happens to both names at the same time.

What are the likely consequences?

A) Higher renewal rates (fail to renew and you slam the door on both "versions" of the domain, since somebody else will get the pair). This is something Nominet's been trying to engineer for a long time.

B) More revenue to Nominet. Not insane, gurgling fountains of cash like their direct.uk consultation would have produced, but a nice 30%+ rise in revenue (and a sustained one, since they're getting that extra £1/year every single year)

C) A simple structure to work with. Want to boost the security of the commercial namespace? Then just add optional DNSSEC or whatever, and when businesses sign up their 2 names both get DNSSEC enabled.

The above scenario also lets the MARKET decide, in its own time, which of .co.uk and .uk is the most "desirable" extension.

 

[Stephen]

100% pairing

Here's an idea that I've not seen proposed anywhere. I'm just throwing it out there to see what people think. Here goes...

What if the .co.uk and .uk were an automatic set, 2-for-the-price-of-1. When you register one, you get the other, and they are totally 100% inseparable. In other words, they register together, expire together, get transferred together, etc. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a .co.uk without a .uk, and vice-versa (though they don't necessarily both have to resolve - you could have 0, 1 or 2 names resolving - that's up to you and your nameservers).

Nominet could probably bump the price of the pair up by a pound or two per year without getting too greatly pilloried. In other words, this new "combined" domain for the UK would cost say £4/year+VAT.

What are the likely consequences?

A) Higher renewal rates (fail to renew and you slam the door on both "versions" of the domain, since somebody else will get the pair). This is something Nominet's been trying to engineer for a long time.

B) More revenue to Nominet. Not insane, gurgling fountains of cash like their direct.uk consultation would have produced, but a nice 30%+ rise in revenue (and a sustained one, since they're getting that extra £1/year every single year)

C) A simple structure to work with. Want to boost the security of the commercial namespace? Then just add optional DNSSEC or whatever, and when businesses sign up their 2 names both get DNSSEC enabled.

The above scenario also lets the MARKET decide, in its own time, which of .co.uk and .uk is the most "desirable" extension.

I might not have put it so eloquently as you but that is what I have campaining for from the start!

Paired ownership, 100% joint ownership, the same model as Japan use for linking English and Japanese equivalent strings.

What Nominet are looking to do in the .wales domain model as one of their proposed solutions to the problem.

Very liitlle effort and lots of benefits just need to solve a few of the issues like trade mark holders not owning the .co.uk in the first place and a few (lets find the number) who would really need the .uk.

Now Nominet have finally removed the security link to .uk as you requested they did at the first London round table meeting (as did many others subsequently) it is now possible to see what the barriers are to 100% paired ownership.

When asked Nominet about this in London they stated they had not considered the pairing as an option before launching the .uk proposal.

There is no need to increase the price of the pair (.co.uk and .uk), the only reason to mention it is to gain Nominet support, that is not a valid reason in my opinion.

 

[anthony]

It's patently obvious already what they want everyone to think the reason for the failure was, and in doing so they’re looking to control the way this moves in the future. They’re surely hoping that if the majority of objectors are offered grandfather rights now, it's much more inclined to get through next time around. It's a small concession in reality, although as a chess move, that would involve a significant climb down from the most vocal objectors.

They’re canny buggers, I’ll give them that!

 

[Edwin]

Very liitlle effort and lots of benifits just need to solve a few of the issues like trade mark holders not owning the .co.uk in the first place and a few (lets find the number) who would really need the .uk.

TM holders have nothing to do with it. The DRS would win the "pair" so if they had a legitimate right to take the .co.uk away from its current owner (which is what we really mean here - it's insufficient to have TM rights, you also have to have a situation where the current owner has NO rights of any kind, otherwise you've got a much weaker standard of proof than the DRS) they can just use the DRS mechanism, which by and large is trusted and proven to work.

If they didn't have a leg to stand on DRS-wise, then nothing that Nominet does when introducing "new" extensions should change that!

 

[philiporchard]

Here's an idea that I've not seen proposed anywhere. I'm just throwing it out there to see what people think. Here goes...

What if the .co.uk and .uk were an automatic set, 2-for-the-price-of-1. When you register one, you get the other, and they are totally 100% inseparable. In other words, they register together, expire together, get transferred together, etc. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a .co.uk without a .uk, and vice-versa (though they don't necessarily both have to resolve - you could have 0, 1 or 2 names resolving - that's up to you and your nameservers).

Nominet could probably bump the price of the pair up by a pound or two per year without getting too greatly pilloried. In other words, this new "combined" domain for the UK would cost say £4/year+VAT. And from Nominet's point of view it's just data in a database so their ongoing cost is very, very close to zero. Since there's still only 1 renewal, 1 transfer etc. per "pair" there's no extra customer support or communication required, just a little fiddling in their systems to make sure that whatever happens (change of registrant, different contact info, marking as not required, transfers, etc.) happens to both names at the same time.

What are the likely consequences?

A) Higher renewal rates (fail to renew and you slam the door on both "versions" of the domain, since somebody else will get the pair). This is something Nominet's been trying to engineer for a long time.

B) More revenue to Nominet. Not insane, gurgling fountains of cash like their direct.uk consultation would have produced, but a nice 30%+ rise in revenue (and a sustained one, since they're getting that extra £1/year every single year)

C) A simple structure to work with. Want to boost the security of the commercial namespace? Then just add optional DNSSEC or whatever, and when businesses sign up their 2 names both get DNSSEC enabled.

The above scenario also lets the MARKET decide, in its own time, which of .co.uk and .uk is the most "desirable" extension.

After a quick scan, it would appear to solve the issue regarding protecting businesses that use a .co.uk domain as a key part of their business. This is fundamental to the discussion.

 

[Stephen]

canny?

It's patently obvious already what they want everyone to think the reason for the failure was, and in doing so they’re looking to control the way this moves in the future. They’re surely hoping that if the majority of objectors are offered grandfather rights now, it's much more inclined to get through next time around. It's a small concession in reality, although as a chess move, that would involve a significant climb down from the most vocal objectors.

They’re canny buggers, I’ll give them that!

It comes back to Nominet words on going forward:

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.

In earlier statments by Nominet about migration and grandfather rights they stress the rights for .org.uk owners and the 470,000 non unique UK domains. Although I broke the number down to a more manageable 50,000 potential conflicts that is still an issue Nominet seem to want to fix.

Also I cannot believe they will not also supply the trade mark holders of equivalent strings the chance to get a new .uk domain.

This means more auctions again but maybe with .co.uk owners going againist .org.uk and trade mark holders and companies name holders all in one big auction!

The battle is not over yet.

Unless there is 100% paired ownership there will be problemns with the release mechanism and potential confusion over .uk ownership with all the many problems that brings that have mentioned many times in the Acorn thread on the .uk proposal by many people.

 

[websaway]

It's patently obvious already what they want everyone to think the reason for the failure was, and in doing so they’re looking to control the way this moves in the future. They’re surely hoping that if the majority of objectors are offered grandfather rights now, it's much more inclined to get through next time around. It's a small concession in reality, although as a chess move, that would involve a significant climb down from the most vocal objectors.

They’re canny buggers, I’ll give them that!

I have to agree with you here.
There is no chance of Nominet agreeing to Edwins proposal as is, It's not the huge cash cow Nominet envisaged, so they will grasp the general consensus by large stakeholders and build from there.
This proposal solves the big issues for nominet tag holders ( huge financial cost and co.uk rights ) but not the millions of domains registered at retail prices.
Of course anyone would agree with having a .uk as a right with a co.uk but that is not going to happen without substantial cost,probably in the form of auctions.

The email nominet sent to me contains the following reference to org.uk

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.

 

[Stephen]

Trade mark holders gone away?

TM holders have nothing to do with it. The DRS would win the "pair" so if they had a legitimate right to take the .co.uk away from its current owner (which is what we really mean here - it's insufficient to have TM rights, you also have to have a situation where the current owner has NO rights of any kind, otherwise you've got a much weaker standard of proof than the DRS) they can just use the DRS mechanism, which by and large is trusted and proven to work.

If they didn't have a leg to stand on DRS-wise, then nothing that Nominet does when introducing "new" extensions should change that!

As you well know Nominet tried to change it by giving trade mark holders more rights than .co.uk owners, so they would have been able to get the .uk domains. Even if they had no chance of getting the .co.uk domain via DRS they wouldbe able to get the .uk if they gave Nominet enough money.

The actions of Nominet giving trade mark holders primary rights in the original proposal indicate to me that the issue will not simply go away and I worry that Nominet will just give equal weight to all the parties of .co.uk, .org.uk, trade mark holders (uk, Europe, rest of world), Uk limited company owners, people who can show they are trading with string as a trade name, so as to be fair and put them all into one big auction for each string! I certainly do not agree that is what should happen only what might happen based on Nominets last statment and their actions over the last 4 months.

If they (.co.uk and .uk) were paired then yes a DRS or any legal action would transfer both domains but that is not what Nominet are currently heading for.

I'm trying to deal with the Nominet believe there are cases of injustice now and show that DRS could be used now so that the 100% pairing can be done and if they win the .co.uk they would also get the .uk, as all .co.uk owners would.

Why wait through another year of uncertainty or run the risk of a lot of auctions for the .co.uk owners to contend with to get the .uk equivalent.

The 100% pairing solution needs to deal with .org.uk and trade mark holders whilst not diluting that ALL .co.uk owners own the .uk otherwise it will not happen.

 

[foz]

I think providing evidence, such as an independent market study and survey of domain holders in the UK, of such "desires" to own and use a .uk should be a done (1,000 entities). It's all conjecture to assume otherwise. The study should not be masked or mingled with security concerns as to confuse the core subject.

As for Nominet providing .uk for free, the mantra emanating from the board at the moment is growth and revenue which seems to be in conflict with the "not for profit" principles of the company. I don't see free happening.