.uk Shelved

[websaway]

A question for Edwin ( not a knocking session just searching for perspective )

Maps.co.uk registered 1996
Maps.org.uk registered 1999
Maps trademark holders various


Your proposal would mean Nominet giving you Maps.uk for the princely sum of £1.50 plus Vat ?

 

[Stephen]

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.

Yes now the security is out the way it is an easier question but why confuse it with .org.uk, .me.uk owners?

Again the problems of different ownership of .co.uk and .uk is the strong theme that came though the consultation results, keep it simple 100% paired ownership of .co.uk and .uk and the owner decides which one to use at any point in time.

We have to help change the culture at Nominet on growth and what it really means to look after the UK namespace, that will take time but I believe it can be done.

If Nominet don't act on .uk there will be a fear that a new GLTD will start to erode the current levels of UK domain ownership BUT .uk for FREE will help halt the exodus from .co.uk, although not growth it will stop the decline that will come otherwise.

 

[Stephen]

Yes

A question for Edwin ( not a knocking session just searching for perspective )
Maps.co.uk registered 1996
Maps.org.uk registered 1999
Maps trademark holders various
Your proposal would mean Nominet giving you Maps.uk for the princely sum of £1.50 plus Vat ?

I believe from the beginning, back last October that .co.uk owners should get 100% linked ownership of the .uk for no extra cost and that is still my postion.

maps.co.uk would own maps.uk BUT they could not sell maps.uk and still keep maps.co.uk
so the only real benefit is whether they want to use a shorter more modern looking domain .uk name and that would have to be weighed up againist the cost of rebranding.

 

[websaway]

I believe from the beginning of this back last October that .co.uk owners should get 100% linked ownership of the .uk for no extra cost and that is still my postion.

mapsco.uk would own mapsuk BUT they could not sell mapsuk and still keep mapsco.uk
so the only real benefit is whether they want to use a shorter more modern looking domain name and that would have to be weighed up againist the cost of rebranding.

I can see the position. They would be linked and free and therefore not in competition in any form and that certainly solves my reservation about selling the uk business space twice, it also solves the cost issue.

The chances of it happening ? about the same as the chances of success of Nominets original proposals.

 

[Stephen]

Why not?

.......The chances of it happening ? about the same as the chances of success of Nominets original proposals.

Please expand your reasoning.

Why do you think Nominet would not do it or there would be no demand for it?

Problems with .org.uk?

Problems with trade mark holders?

No auction money?

Technical?

 

[websaway]

Please expand your reasoning.

Why do you think Nominet would not do it or there would be no demand for it?

Problems with .org.uk?

Problems with trade mark holders?

No auction money?

Technical?

No obvious technical problems but all the others yes.

 

[getmein]

Free can't happen with the current board, as it's not in the interests of the 'Megistrars' (who want to sell additional domains to their customers) or to the other board members who want to generate a substantial amount of money (for 'equitable' distribution to their charitable causes and their pockets).

They need to have a release mechanism which causes conflict between different interested parties - as thats what will generate the substantial auction proceeds.

A release mechanism that awards the domains to the existing .co.uk registrant (at a nominal cost - say £5, although I'm sure they'll still try and bundle .uk with some unnecessary bits and bobs to justify a far higher price point) won't generate the bumper payday they want. First, the take up of .uk won't be 100%. Second, they might see some erosion in .co.uk as people switch from one to the other.

I too have considered that they might just have bundled them together - but as this proposal is ultimately about money and not about improving the uk internet - unless they can find a way to pitch .uk at a higher price point to generate long term renewal revenues and find a way to run auctions with multiple interested parties, it's not really in the current boards interest.

 

[Stephen]

Plan B

......I too have considered that they might just have bundled them together - but as this proposal is ultimately about money and not about improving the uk internet - unless they can find a way to pitch .uk at a higher price point to generate long term renewal revenues and find a way to run auctions with multiple interested parties, it's not really in the current boards interest.

But it should be what is best for the UK namespace and that is what the Nominet Board are tasked with.

Lets hope we can get Nominet to see that another round of auctions is not going to work even with grandfather ights so the .co.uk and .org.uk can participate in the first auction with the trade mark holders - nobody wants that except Nominet.

So lets get a proper plan "B" for .uk that can work, which has to be 100% paired ownership for .co.uk and .uk with no cost.

 

[Edwin]

A question for Edwin ( not a knocking session just searching for perspective )

Maps.co.uk registered 1996
Maps.org.uk registered 1999
Maps trademark holders various


Your proposal would mean Nominet giving you Maps.uk for the princely sum of £1.50 plus Vat ?

Yes, of course. "maps" is a generic word. Trademarks are utterly irrelevant.

Once again, if it fails the "would our claim win a DRS?" test then there shouldn't be a lower standard of proof for .uk

 

[Edwin]

I can see the position. They would be linked and free and therefore not in competition in any form and that certainly solves my reservation about selling the uk business space twice, it also solves the cost issue.

Yes, that was the point I was making too.

By pairing .co.uk and .uk irrevokably and permanently, Nominet are effectively just making the purchase of a "(.co.uk + .uk) domain" a more attractive proposal i.e. they're likely to boost both their registration and retention rates - two goals that they evidently aspire to.

There would also be 0% chance of misdirected email, and 0% increase in phishing issues.

 

[Edwin]

BTW, all this is extremely hypothetical - my instinct is that .uk as a concept will be dead after the June meeting, though I will be standing by ready to take Nominet to task should they try and slip a dodgy proposal past us a second time.

 

[Stephen]

more 0%

....There would also be 0% chance of misdirected email, and 0% increase in phishing issues.

Plus
0% traffic leakage
0% sites being set up to redirection to to gain affiliate income
0% confusion of 2 nearly identical brands
0% of future problems
0% of one domain being incorrectly dropped and caught by another party
0% (well nearly) of complaints from exisiting .co.uk if they get it for free

 

[Stephen]

hypothetical ?

BTW, all this is extremely hypothetical - my instinct is that .uk as a concept will be dead after the June meeting,....

I disagree, 100% pairing if suggested before all this began, would have created a debate but would stand a very big chance of being welcomed by the .co.uk owners (the largest UK namespace stakeholder) and adopted.

Now we do not have security issues to muddy the waters, as it appears that Nominet have finally accepted the seperation of security issues from .uk.
Perphaps Nominet can see what is best for the UK namespace not focus just on the registrars or Nominet bonuses.

I believe that apart from "invincible" (and others that agree with him) at Acorn with his views on this would limit the launching of future 3rd level tld's such as .manchester.uk and .golf.uk etc. I have not seen a case put forward againist the 100% pairing concept that cannot be overcome.

There probably would have to be restrictions on selling subdomains from a .uk domain as that restriction does make some sort of sense sometimes?

100% pairing .co.uk and .uk can work and Nominet should persue it as a serious option.

...though I will be standing by ready to take Nominet to task should they try and slip a dodgy proposal past us a second time.

I will be joining you comarade (as will many others) on the battlefield should this be the case!

 

[Jump]

What strikes me reading this and former conversations, is that no one seems to refer to the many times that this has been done in other markets without a hitch. ".com.cn" just gave the com.cn registrants some time to claim the second level. Gradfathered in. Voila. ".com.es." did it. Last year I got .hk names, that were "paired" with the third level.

Again: thank you for all your hard work in the UK *killing* the former proposal!!!!!!

 

[Bailey]

Good morning Jump. That must be a new record 6th post in 6 years. You haven't got my sleeping pattern I hope ?

Nice to see some grandfathering points of reference posted. Be interesting to see/read the motivation behind other ccld migrations to 2nd level. I don't think they would be comparable with those of Nominet though.

Japan was the only one I was vaguely familiar with and they have kept both 2nd and 3rd level alive for the time-being

 

[Stephen]

3rd to 2nd level

What strikes me reading this and former conversations, is that no one seems to refer to the many times that this has been done in other markets without a hitch. ".com.cn" just gave the com.cn registrants some time to claim the second level. Gradfathered in. Voila. ".com.es." did it. Last year I got .hk names, that were "paired" with the third level.

Again: thank you for all your hard work in the UK *killing* the former proposal!!!!!!

Edwin's first document at http://www.mydomainnames.co.uk/ showed how previous changes from third level to 2nd level had been organized and the differences like "no auctions". It showed Nominet they had a fight on their hands with such a professional and well researched document compared to their "anecdotal evidence".

To me this was the first pivotal document which showed domainers (and the media) that it was not self-interest of domainers that was driving a campaign againist the Nominet .uk proposal as presented but that is was just wrong. (although I did not agree with the final conclusion in the doument).

Every country that does or considers doing 3rd to 2nd level, is different and mainly because .co.uk is so dominant and has been pushed hard by Nominet as the "place to be" I believe in pairing ownership of .co.uk and .uk rather than a lottery or an auction or some set of artificial release rules that can never deal with all the issues is the right solution for the UK namepsace.

The 100% pairing fixes the matter well into the future, some of these other solutions employed in different countries will have traffic leakage, phising, squatting for money, misdirected emails, etc. forever within their systems, just on a smaller scale than Nominet were trying to push through.

Lets hope that somebody can look at the after effects in these countries of the changes from 3rd to 2nd level domains rather just what they did, also lets look at the reason they did it.

 

[monaghan]

Once again, if it fails the "would our claim win a DRS?" test then there shouldn't be a lower standard of proof for .uk

This has to be the key to ownership, not the deepest pockets. There has to be a single standard against which all UK names are judged to protect ALL users of the UK space and that presently is DRS.

 

[websaway]

What strikes me reading this and former conversations, is that no one seems to refer to the many times that this has been done in other markets without a hitch. ".com.cn" just gave the com.cn registrants some time to claim the second level. Gradfathered in. Voila. ".com.es." did it. Last year I got .hk names, that were "paired" with the third level.

Again: thank you for all your hard work in the UK *killing* the former proposal!!!!!!

When you put all these things in the pot it just becomes clearer what was motivating Nominet in their original proposals. A massive quick buck.

But as Edwin said on his twitter, "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube".

 

[Edwin]

What strikes me reading this and former conversations, is that no one seems to refer to the many times that this has been done in other markets without a hitch. ".com.cn" just gave the com.cn registrants some time to claim the second level. Gradfathered in. Voila. ".com.es." did it. Last year I got .hk names, that were "paired" with the third level.

That's not quite the same as what's been discussed in the last couple of pages. Once the sunrise period ended, .com.cn and .cn names were sold separately going forward, and the .cn names claimed by the .com.cn owners were also completely separate in that they could be sold separately, owned by different entities, etc.

What we're talking about is a closer link, basically fusing the entire concept of what the "commercial domain for the UK" is to turn it into a single pair of domains that cannot be split up, and which behave in lock-step (e.g. only 1 Whois record, change that and it changes for both names).

 

[Edwin]

If you've not seen it yet, it's worth looking at my position paper, especially Appendix C, since that summarises how all other cctld transitions have been handled in the past. http://www.mydomainnames.co.uk/ukpositionpaper.pdf

NOTES
- No other country has proposed an auction (except Colombia, but it was the very last step of a 4-stage release and existing domain owners were served first)
- Either the registrant of the existing "commercial" extension or the registrant of the oldest (by registration date as recorded on the Whois at transition time) was given first right of refusal to the corresponding 2LD in all cases, though some small exceptions were made for "government agencies" to jump the queue in South Korea and Saudi Arabia
- In several 2LD launches, there was a phase catering to TM holders AFTER domain owners had been served, but BEFORE general release. In other words, TM holders were given first dibs at the REMAINING domains after domain holders had finished claiming theirs. That actually strikes me as a fair compromise.

Anyway, that's just the gist of it - there's a very detailed breakdown in the document I linked to above.