.uk Shelved

[Stephen]

support 100% pairing

..... 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......

The "compromise" creates problems of different ownership of many .co.uk and .uk ownership and all the problems that have been identified with different ownership of 2 tld's that do the same job.

The .uk consultation summary clearly shows different ownership as a major issue, why have the problem at all.

You might think it is common sense that if you owned a .co.uk and you were offered the .uk you would take it. (but you a domainer)

So carry that on those .uk domains not taken were not wanted and so a trade mark holder or somebody else coud have it, right?

What would the future look like?

The biggest problem with the above is knowledge and communication;
Communication - will it happen again on the new .uk proposal?:

• Nominet showed that when they said we have told registrars - they meant only the miniority of registrars on the nom-announce list
• Nominet showed that they only realeased 1 PR piece about the .uk proposal and did not even attampt to widen its distribution
• Nominet did not make any effort to communicate the .uk proposal to its 10 million registrants even by email
• Nominet did not create a guide to the .uk proposal for those who did not understand domains, traffic leakage, cyber squating, DNSSEC, malware etc.
• Nominet did not provide any of the pros and cons of .uk
• Nominet did not place any offline or online adverts about the .uk consultation
• Nominet did not provide evidence of demand or their proposal was based on precedent or that they had considered alternatives

Knowledge:

• People on this forum will undertstand why if you had a .co.uk and you were offered a .uk for free or minimal amount you should take it, many business people in my experience do not understand why they should and so will not, they may live to regret it later but that is no consolation
• What about consumer confusion that the vast majority of .co.uk is the same owner as .uk but occasionally they are not
• What about cyber squatting
• What would be the point of .co.uk as a seperate tld when you have .uk
• Why not let the .co.uk expire as I now use my new .uk?

Edwin (and the rest of Acorn members) I hope you reconsider your position and support 100% pairing as the way Nominet should be requested to follow as a solution to .uk.

 

[Edwin]

100% pairing is something I would definitely applaud if it happened, but it's not something I'd hold my breath for because that's far beyond what ANY other cctld has done.

If you're talking about actively campaigning, it's better to campaign for something "demonstrably fair" (based on evidence) than for something great but ultimately likely to be pie in the sky.

My #1 choice remains "no .uk at all".

 

[Stephen]

fairest?

100% pairing is something I would definitely applaud if it happened, but it's not something I'd hold my breath for because that's far beyond what ANY other cctld has done.

If you're talking about actively campaigning, it's better to campaign for something "demonstrably fair" (based on evidence) than for something great but ultimately likely to be pie in the sky.

My #1 choice remains "no .uk at all".

The evidence is 100% pairing is fair as all the alternative solutions create unfairness in different ways.

Consider doing a "for and againist list" with 100% pairing versus the what the next Nominet .uk proposal is likely to be.

Just because no other country tld has done it execpet Japan and maybe Wales shortly (that I know of) doesn't mean it should not be persued as the correct course for the UK namespace.

Lets hope .nz consider 100% pairing as a serious option and then maybe the precendent you seek will become available.

The precendents you talk about:

• happened a long time ago when the internet was a different place
• the volume of domains was massisvely different in these other countires
• the structure of the 3rd level was different in many cases
• they did not have 10,000,000 uk domains
• cyber crime was not so prevalent
• the registrars did not have a campaign to push .co.uk as the place to be
• did not have 16 years of seeing .co.uk in adverts seeping into the UK consciousness
• did not have cyber squatters that have a great deal of funds and resources
• did not seek to sell the same namespace twice

I will continue to lobby Nominet that 100% pairing of .co.uk and .uk is the fairest and best solution for the UK namespace.

If I fail, good luck in the .uk auctions!

 

[foz]

The evidence is 100% pairing is fair as all the alternative solutions create unfairness in different ways.

Their is the matter of the .org.uk registrants. Nominet (Phil in Marketing) has stated that they will not be brushed aside.

I don't see any "work arounds" to the concept of .uk, as anyone that has bought into the current system will be at a disadvantage.

 

[Edwin]

If I fail, good luck in the .uk auctions!

There are more options than those two extremes! There's no reason for auctions to be held (except as a landrush phase after all other interests have been taken care of, i.e. just before general release, if Nominet want to drum up a bit more cash)

 

[websaway]

There are more options than those two extremes! There's no reason for auctions to be held (except as a landrush phase after all other interests have been taken care of, i.e. just before general release, if Nominet want to drum up a bit more cash)

Without the security issue there is no way nominet can introduce .uk as a direct competitor to co.uk or create more cost for the co.uk user by holding them to ransom. Nominet fell at the first hurdle on these points and will continue to do so because co.uk holders will protest that it is simply commercial greed.

Everyone should forget self interest and demand the status quo where either additional cost or competition to the co.uk business domain space is threatened.

 

[websaway]

Their is the matter of the .org.uk registrants. Nominet (Phil in Marketing) has stated that they will not be brushed aside.

I don't see any "work arounds" to the concept of .uk, as anyone that has bought into the current system will be at a disadvantage.

You really can't build a case for the org.uk holder except that nominet sanctioned it's use as a commercial extension, therefore the buck stops with nominet, they created the problem and it's just one of the things they can't get around, but that's nothing like the problems they would store up if they introduced the .uk for business.

"Say NO to Direct business extension competition to the co.uk in the UK namespace"

 

[Stephen]

.org.uk issues

Their is the matter of the .org.uk registrants. Nominet (Phil in Marketing) has stated that they will not be brushed aside.

I don't see any "work arounds" to the concept of .uk, as anyone that has bought into the current system will be at a disadvantage.

Agree there is a problem with .org.uk for 2 reasons:
1. Nominet via Phil have stated it is problem with full migration of .co.uk to .uk
2. If there ability to work as .org.uk is undermined by a .uk and them not having the .uk

On the first point, have to show Nominet it is not such an issue, I have already showed them how to get the problem from 470,000 to 50,000 and that number will fall further when more of a full study is done. That number is far less than the damage done to .co.uk owners under any alternative proposal. When I look at the damage that would have been done by the original .uk proposal I cannot believe Nominet have the nerve to state .org.uk owners without showing a study to show the numbers and a list of those who would be adverslely effected. That list I believe would be very short list indeed.

On the second point .org.uk purpose is well undertood and documentated and marketed by Nominet and will not be undermind or not possible by the introduction of .uk. The majority of .org.uk organizations like Nominet itself has secured the equivalent .co.uk as protection and they will in the majority of volume sites have the ability to use .org.uk or .uk (as they will own the .co.uk).

 

[Stephen]

100% pairing v. No .uk ever

100% pairing is something I would definitely applaud if it happened, ....
My #1 choice remains "no .uk at all".

Which do you think is better for the UK namespace with all the many factors you are aware of:

1. 100% pairing of .co.uk and .uk
2. Mixed bag of .co.uk and .uk ownership with release changes to original proposal (favouring UK registrants)
3. No .uk ever

• not what you want
• not what you think is going to happen
• not what you think Nominet is going to do

Simply what would be best for the UK namespace?

 

[Stephen]

different owner numbers?

Without the security issue there is no way nominet can introduce .uk as a direct competitor to co.uk or create more cost for the co.uk user by holding them to ransom. Nominet fell at the first hurdle on these points and will continue to do so because co.uk holders will protest that it is simply commercial greed.

Everyone should forget self interest and demand the status quo where either additional cost or competition to the co.uk business domain space is threatened.

Nominet by their recent statement made it clear that they have not given up with .uk

If they allow .uk to go ahead with a different release mechanism then the many problems associated with different ownership will occur just with less instances than under the original proposal but depending on the actions of Nominet during the .uk process, I fear the number of different owners between .co.uk and equivalent .uk strings will be possiblly over 1,000,000 and that to me is a lot of potential problems.

I would see 100% joint ownership or no .uk at all if that is not possible.

Anything in between would result in the same future and problems for the UK namespace as the original .uk proposal but with less people being effected.

 

[websaway]

Nominet by their recent statement made it clear that they have not given up with .uk

If they allow .uk to go ahead with a different release mechanism then the many problems associated with different ownership will occur just with less instances than under the original proposal but depending on the actions of Nominet during the .uk process, I fear the number of different owners between .co.uk and equivalent .uk strings will be possiblly over 1,000,000 and that to me is a lot of potential problems.

I would see 100% joint ownership or no .uk at all if that is not possible.

Anything in between would result in the same future and problems for the UK namespace as the original .uk proposal but with less people being effected.

Of course Nominet do want to go ahead because it's a cash cow, a massive income stream. They are trying to sell the same commodity twice, whoever originally proposed it should have been laughed at but they were not because potential income had clouded judgement, in reality though they have no chance of raising millions of pounds a year by selling the same thing to the same people that they have already sold it to and really that should be the end of that.

 

[Bailey]

OOPs - All these later posts have certainly made my earlier gestures of celebration seem a bit premature.

I'm guessing most would rather see things come to a head as soon as possible, rather than still be still wondering 'what and if' 12 months from now

 

[getmein]

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

The current extensions co.uk/org.uk/me.uk (regardless of actual use) have well defined 'ideal' ownership criteria. Nominet need to consider what .uk represents - do they see it as the business extension of the future OR do they see it as the 'ideal' extension for all of these registrants. I seem to remember the direct.uk video talking about it being 'optional'. While ostensibly true, it was a very naive thing to say - for all the problems that would cause people who didn't secure the corresponding .uk domain, as has been discussed at some length on the other thread.

I see .uk, if released becoming the preferred extension (although that could be on a 10 year+ view, or if I'm wrong, possibly never). So on that basis, .uk should always have been framed from the point of view of .co.uk owners. They are the largest group of customers by a huge margin and it's the best recognised of the current .uk extensions.

I am intrinsically opposed to auctions as a way of deciding who should win the corresponding .uk domain (at least during the initial release phases). It's a method that is self-serving for Nominet and which has a very real cost to current owners of .co.uk.

I'm sure Nominet could go through the registrants of .org.uk (see which ones actually list themselves as charities etc) to get a view on how many of the owners of .org.uk are using them as intended and then cross reference those with the corresponding .co.uk domains to see how many of those organisations are likely to lose out on .uk. Once they've got an idea of the scale of the problem for these situations e.g. wwf.co.uk V wwf.org.uk they can decide whether that in itself makes .uk unworkable.

Tying .co.uk to .uk subject to cost, might work (I'm happy with free, I become progressively less enthusiastic as we head towards their originally muted £20 price point) - but as I've already mentioned in another post, I don't think the current board would like to turn down the opportunity to generate a substantial windfall from .uk. They can only ever sell .uk once and I'm sure they'd like to maximise the return from it.

 

[Stephen]

really that should be the end?

Of course Nominet do want to go ahead because it's a cash cow, a massive income stream. They are trying to sell the same commodity twice, whoever originally proposed it should have been laughed at but they were not because potential income had clouded judgement, in reality though they have no chance of raising millions of pounds a year by selling the same thing to the same people that they have already sold it to and really that should be the end of that.

I look at the anxious posts before the board announcement and never felt that people here believed that Nominet would not do something with .uk.

I agree with your sentiment except Nominet state:

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.

So I do not read that as "that is the end of .uk" as far as Nominet are concerned.

 

[Alien]

So I do not read that as "that is the end of .uk" as far as Nominet are concerned.

Nominet will do this at some point in the future, guaranteed. It's just a matter of when and how.

 

[websaway]

I look at the anxious posts before the board announcement and never felt that people here believed that Nominet would not do something with .uk.

I agree with your sentiment except Nominet state:



So I do not read that as "that is the end of .uk" as far as Nominet are concerned.

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


So in the unlikely event they can achieve that challenge how are they going to get over all the other contentious issues, like saying to a co.uk owner, we want some more money from you for the same thing that you already legally own, for no justifiable reason other than to create another income stream at the expense of the whole UK business internet community.

 

[Stephen]

£20 cost?

...Tying .co.uk to .uk subject to cost, might work (I'm happy with free, I become progressively less enthusiastic as we head towards their originally muted £20 price point) - but as I've already mentioned in another post, I don't think the current board would like to turn down the opportunity to generate a substantial windfall from .uk. They can only ever sell .uk once and I'm sure they'd like to maximise the return from it.

Unfortunately Nominet never provided the breakdown even in a general area way, on what justified the £20 wholesale price of .uk.

On several face to face meetings with Nominet, I believe the vast majority of the £20 was "Security" and malware scanning done daily would cost the largest part together with address verification being equally expensive (I really think they did not think this through as I believe they were linking the cost to each domain - rather than have a registrant verify and use that as a verified source so saving a dramatic amount of time and cost).

Anyway Malware and trustmark were not mentioned in the latest Nominet statment and the DNSSEC which costs 50p is not going to be compulsory so the future justification for extra for .uk is very limited indeed.

Also when they started .uk one of the largest reasons was the registrant had to be UK based. This was removed in the first week as it was pointed out by a domainer that was againist EU law, so they have to be very careful about UK presence being a condition.

Also there presented model and therefore costed model assumes it was address verification by post it could be done by email as effectively, with a statment you are committing a criminal act if you provide incorrect information.

Nominet have stated:

Measures to improve security across the whole of the .uk namespace. This would include increased focus on encouraging the adoption of DNSSEC.
A firm focus on registrant verification and some form of UK presence.
Further investigations into the impact on the SME sector.
An appropriate pricing model.

Without security there is a strong case to say no cost for .uk if its ownership is linked and only one whois record covering both .co.uk and .uk.

 

[Edwin]

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

There are so many ways to read one sentence, as the different "bolded" versions in previous posts show.

However, the release mechanism that I put forward in my proposal document doesn't "break" the sentence i.e. it's entirely compatible with it...

A release mechanism that takes care of existing domain owners first (either .co.uk exclusively, or oldest registration) then TM holders, then a landrush, then general availability would map exactly onto the sentence.

largely = existing registrants taken care of first
contention reduced or eliminated = only contention at the TM stage, and at landrush (both of which are "fair enough" since who's to say one TM's stronger than another, and of course by definition landrush is contentious)

 

[Edwin]

Which do you think is better for the UK namespace with all the many factors you are aware of:

1. 100% pairing of .co.uk and .uk
2. Mixed bag of .co.uk and .uk ownership with release changes to original proposal (favouring UK registrants)
3. No .uk ever

• not what you want
• not what you think is going to happen
• not what you think Nominet is going to do

Simply what would be best for the UK namespace?

Ok, I'll answer your question specifically as stated.

"No .uk ever" wins hands down. The status quo plus a commitment to preserving the status quo going forward is the best for the UK namespace. The system is not only not broken, it actually works very, very well!

 

[Stephen]

.....So in the unlikely event they can achieve that challenge how are they going to get over all the other contentious issues, like saying to a co.uk owner, we want some more money from you for the same thing that you already legally own, for no justifiable reason other than to create another income stream at the expense of the whole UK business internet community.

They have just bought time with their statment, I believe Nominet are looking through the options to try to find a way that looks plausable, fair and that they have listened to concerns.

You only have to read the biased interpretation of the .uk Nominet policy view of the consultation versus the independant summary of the consultation, to know they have not grasped the basics of .uk.

They will if not stopped just push there version of the way the world should be onto the UK namespace, as there way will be fairer or some such logic.

Remember these were the people who for several months went on, we are not selling the same space twice this is ".uk is a secure space for business" we have not sold that before.