.uk V2.0 Questions to Nominet & their Answers

[Stephen]

less than 99% ?

In my "real world" sample covering over 1,000 businesses in Cambridge, which I posted about in the other thread, over 99% of those businesses would get the matching .uk.

That's the elephant in the room which people seem unwilling to acknowledge: there's an overwhelming likelihood that the vast majority of businesses will in fact be "ok" with .uk because they're going to get the domain anyway.

So you can drag out exceptions until you're blue in the face, but that's exactly what they are: exceptions. Very nearly all regular businesses will be fine. And in the case of the few that won't get their domain, it's because an "externally fair" process (i.e. one which I firmly believe will stand up to impartial scrutiny) gave it to someone else.

On exception in your quoted example, is the 40 .co.uk owners who loose out to the .org.uk

Of the 47 .org.uk domain owners, 40 (85%) will be automatically eligible for the matching .uk.

You also assume all will .co.uk owners take up there rights (which I know is a different topic) but the mechanism
and efforts Nominet will undertake are not specific at this time and many have different views on take up rates by non-domainers.

Rather than looking for exceptions, I have requested Nominet supply the numbers on the database of how many tld will be 1st in the queue for .uk,
to date they have not supplied those figures. (and it is looking likely they never will!)
that would provide all stakeholders with another "real world" example to base their opinion on.

 

[Systreg]

Finally I got around to checking how my own uk domain portfolio would be effected if .uk went ahead as proposed in V2.0.

Out of 8,000 ish UK domains, I would not be in first place on 275 domains, less than 3%.

In my "real world" sample covering over 1,000 businesses in Cambridge, which I posted about in the other thread, over 99% of those businesses would get the matching .uk.

In my world, just from checking my 19 LLL domains, I will not get the matching .UK on 7 (36.8%) of them, and a large majority of my other names I'll also lose out on.

Obviously, I'd get the .UK in 12 of the other LLL names, but I'd rather not have them, I'd prefer it if .UK would just die a death.

 

[GEaston]

I don't think people have correctly read the Nominet consultation in respect of who'll be allocated the .uk domain. It says

"In the event of two competing claims, the oldest current, continuous registration would be given priority."

That is not the same as which domain has the oldest whois. What this means is which of the current registrants has held the domain the longest. In other words anyone who bought a domain recently is toast, irrespective of the original reg date on whois.

The original whois date could be 1996 for .co.uk and 2006 for .org.uk but if the 1996 domain was bought in 2007 and the .org.uk domain is still with the registrant then the .uk goes to the .org.uk holder.

 

[Murray]

I don't think people have correctly read the Nominet consultation in respect of who'll be allocated the .uk domain. It says

"In the event of two competing claims, the oldest current, continuous registration would be given priority."

That is not the same as which domain has the oldest whois. What this means is which of the current registrants has held the domain the longest. In other words anyone who bought a domain recently is toast, irrespective of the original reg date on whois.

The original whois date could be 1996 for .co.uk and 2006 for .org.uk but if the 1996 domain was bought in 2007 and the .org.uk domain is still with the registrant then the .uk goes to the .org.uk holder.

It says registration, not registrant.

 

[Marcoose]

In my "real world" sample covering over 1,000 businesses in Cambridge, which I posted about in the other thread, over 99% of those businesses would get the matching .uk.

That's the elephant in the room which people seem unwilling to acknowledge: there's an overwhelming likelihood that the vast majority of businesses will in fact be "ok" with .uk because they're going to get the domain anyway.

So you can drag out exceptions until you're blue in the face, but that's exactly what they are: exceptions. Very nearly all regular businesses will be fine. And in the case of the few that won't get their domain, it's because an "externally fair" process (i.e. one which I firmly believe will stand up to impartial scrutiny) gave it to someone else.

When you were fighting against direct.uk before you were talking about how unfair it was to the average business. You said it could end up costing them XXX million-billions in re-branding costs, problems with phishing, lost emails, confusion, etc, etc. These factors now seem to have been swept under the carpet.

I appreciate you aren't talking about these things above, but your tune seems to have completely changed now that the new proposal benefits you (or doesn't hit anywhere near as hard). I'm not having a go - it's just a shame that our champion (along with GW) of 'no to direct.uk' has been lost, especially when before, much of your argument was based on unselfish reasoning.

If this isn't the case, then I apologise but you do seem to be consistently defending .UK/Nominet when (imo) the most important problems are still at large.

 

[Stephen]

registration not registrant

It says registration, not registrant.

Agree.

Thanks for explaining that so clearly, I nearly fell off my chair when I saw the original post you responded to!

 

[Stephen]

Big change suggestion to V2

Question - Did Nominet consider this:

What if the oldest registration under the current V2.0 plan was just provided with the .uk, no applying, no second chance for other tld's, no portfolio owners (like me) sweeping up all the names not taken by registrants?

It would not increase the pool of domains, but I don't believe the current plan will either.

If would guess that if you ask the holders of the domain that will be entitled to the .uk will you be selling it on, the answer will be "NO".

If you were buying a .uk would you buy it without the equivalent .co.uk or .org.uk (if you were non-commercial)? No?

Another solution needs to be found to create more in Namespace.

The benefit of this there would be only a few isolated cases of confusion,
when one of the pair was sold. (I still favour 100% pairing).

Plus it would all be done quickly and cheaply.

 

[Edwin]

When you were fighting against direct.uk before you were talking about how unfair it was to the average business. You said it could end up costing them XXX million-billions in re-branding costs, problems with phishing, lost emails, confusion, etc, etc. These factors now seem to have been swept under the carpet.

I appreciate you aren't talking about these things above, but your tune seems to have completely changed now that the new proposal benefits you (or doesn't hit anywhere near as hard). I'm not having a go - it's just a shame that our champion (along with GW) of 'no to direct.uk' has been lost, especially when before, much of your argument was based on unselfish reasoning.

If this isn't the case, then I apologise but you do seem to be consistently defending .UK/Nominet when (imo) the most important problems are still at large.

At this point, it's getting very boring to have to keep restating my position. I've explained the below at least 5-6 times so far.

Anyway, I'll do it one more time then that's it.

A) I believe we would be better off with the status quo, and I will be stating so in my submission to the V2 consultation using the same arguments as I did during V1
B) I believe that .uk is almost certain to go ahead
C) I believe that IF .uk goes ahead then V2 with a few minor tweaks is the best way of implementing it

There. Short and sweet.

 

[Edwin]

I don't think people have correctly read the Nominet consultation in respect of who'll be allocated the .uk domain. It says

"In the event of two competing claims, the oldest current, continuous registration would be given priority."

That is not the same as which domain has the oldest whois. What this means is which of the current registrants has held the domain the longest. In other words anyone who bought a domain recently is toast, irrespective of the original reg date on whois.

The original whois date could be 1996 for .co.uk and 2006 for .org.uk but if the 1996 domain was bought in 2007 and the .org.uk domain is still with the registrant then the .uk goes to the .org.uk holder.

You need to read the background document as well as the consultation document. It says:

For example, this would mean that a domain name that has been continuously registered since 2005 would be granted the right of first refusal over a domain name that was registered in 2000, deleted from the register for non-renewal in 2008 and then re-registered in 2009. Where the domain has been transferred between registrants but has remained registered at all times the date of first registration, and not the date of the last transfer of legal registrant is relevant. In instances where there is an ongoing active DRS complaint about a third level registration the second level domain would not be delegated until the dispute is resolved.

That really is as clear as could be.

See p.7 of this: http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/def...strationInUK–BackgroundAndFurtherDetail_4.pdf

 

[websaway]

At this point, it's getting very boring to have to keep restating my position. I've explained the below at least 5-6 times so far.

Anyway, I'll do it one more time then that's it.

A) I believe we would be better off with the status quo, and I will be stating so in my submission to the V2 consultation using the same arguments as I did during V1
B) I believe that .uk is almost certain to go ahead
C) I believe that IF .uk goes ahead then V2 with a few minor tweaks is the best way of implementing it

There. Short and sweet.

I think that is kind of the problem, for one who doesn't find it difficult to elaborate on almost everything and does, it's a bit too short and sweet.

This time around you are not mentioning the billions in costs to the general business community. It suggests to me that it's ok if you are a beneficiary.
I don't mind people looking after their own interests, in fact I would encourage it, but a public campaign to only guard self interest is something else.

 

[Edwin]

I think that is kind of the problem, for one who doesn't find it difficult to elaborate on almost everything and does, it's a bit too short and sweet.

This time around you are not mentioning the billions in costs to the general business community. It suggests to me that it's ok if you are a beneficiary.
I don't mind people looking after their own interests, in fact I would encourage it, but a public campaign to only guard self interest is something else.

What are you talking about?

I said that I will be submitting the same objections as last time.

They're available for all to read on http://www.mydomainnames.co.uk/pros-and-cons.html and in the associated document. If people don't bother, that's not my failing!

Surely I don't have to keep cutting and pasting page after page of dense commentary from my site onto Acorn in order to "repeat" a position I have held since the early days of V1? (if you want me to, I will, but there are 26 pages of A4)

I've probably posted 150-200 posts since V2 was announced, and ALL of them are consistent with my earlier position.

The following are NOT mutually exclusive ideas:

1) We would be better off without .uk
2) If .uk happens, then V2 is a fair way of making it happen

I have covered 1) to death six ways from Sunday in the run up to V1, during V1 and after - everything I said to object to the idea of .uk is still available online, and is still valid!

I am focused on the "if .uk happens" because I have no NEW arguments to bring to 1) and nor have I seen anyone else advance NEW arguments against .uk that weren't already covered in V1. So we're all repeating 6 month old discussions, which is very very dull and a pointless waste of time and energy. We all have our reasoning against the concept of .uk already lined up and ready to go - we had to get it coherent for the V1 response - so there's no harm in recycling that for V2!

The only new discussion topic should be V2 and the actual release mechanism, because the "no to .uk" story hasn't changed at all.

 

[markb]

2) If .uk happens, then V2 is a fair way of making it happen

Hi Edwin,

Regarding the part in V2 about reserved names which effects me and the owners of "Royal-co-uk" and "Independent-co-uk" and several other people. I just wanted to know your thoughts on this and if you think this is fair. I know it doesn't directly effect you, but do you think this is ok for nominet to decide to propose the oldest registered domain gets the corresponding .uk, but then make exceptions for several domains just because some current government sites are being made to move from .gov.uk?

I know I have brought this up before, but I want to keep mentioning so it doesn't get forgotten and brushed under the carpet as the majority of people may be happy with the proposal, and I haven't seen any other owners of proposed reserved names make any comments. I think if this is allowed to happen, its going to encourage nominet to reserve more names.

I have tried to contact lesley from nominet directly but so far I have had no response.

 

[websaway]

What are you talking about?

I said that I will be submitting the same objections as last time.

They're available for all to read on http://www.mydomainnames.co.uk/pros-and-cons.html and in the associated document. If people don't bother, that's not my failing!

Surely I don't have to keep cutting and pasting page after page of dense commentary from my site onto Acorn in order to "repeat" a position I have held since the early days of V1? (if you want me to, I will, but there are 26 pages of A4)

I've probably posted 150-200 posts since V2 was announced, and ALL of them are consistent with my earlier position.

The following are NOT mutually exclusive ideas:

1) We would be better off without .uk
2) If .uk happens, then V2 is a fair way of making it happen

I have covered 1) to death six ways from Sunday in the run up to V1, during V1 and after - everything I said to object to the idea of .uk is still available online, and is still valid!

I am focused on the "if .uk happens" because I have no NEW arguments to bring to 1) and nor have I seen anyone else advance NEW arguments against .uk that weren't already covered in V1. So we're all repeating 6 month old discussions, which is very very dull and a pointless waste of time and energy. We all have our reasoning against the concept of .uk already lined up and ready to go - we had to get it coherent for the V1 response - so there's no harm in recycling that for V2!

The only new discussion topic should be V2 and the actual release mechanism, because the "no to .uk" story hasn't changed at all.

Thanks for the link to the undated page.
It is hard to see what has been written before and after July 1st 2013 and so that causes obvious confusion.

You might elaborate on the detail of each pro and con. for instance you say:

"Allows people to register desirable names that they missed out on previously"

How will that pan out ?

 

[Edwin]

Thanks for the link to the undated page.
It is hard to see what has been written before and after July 1st 2013 and so that causes obvious confusion.

You might elaborate on the detail of each pro and con. for instance you say:

"Allows people to register desirable names that they missed out on previously"

How will that pan out ?

There's nothing on the site that's been written since V2.

And that's exactly the point: the text that refers to why .uk itself is a bad idea is 100% as valid as it ever was! It didn't need a rewrite.

I will eventually rework my response to the V2 release mechanism, and submit it to Nominet (I may publish it on the site as well, I haven't decided) but the pros/cons of .uk (not the pros/cons of the release mechanism, the pros/cons of .uk itself) are basically unaffected by the specifics of the planned release mechanism.

BTW, if you're going to the Roundtable next week, I'll be there as well.

 

[GreyWing]

BTW, if you're going to the Roundtable next week, I'll be there as well.

Have they got a location for it in London yet? I think I missed it if they have announced it.

 

[Edwin]

Hi Edwin,

Regarding the part in V2 about reserved names which effects me and the owners of "Royal-co-uk" and "Independent-co-uk" and several other people. I just wanted to know your thoughts on this and if you think this is fair. I know it doesn't directly effect you, but do you think this is ok for nominet to decide to propose the oldest registered domain gets the corresponding .uk, but then make exceptions for several domains just because some current government sites are being made to move from .gov.uk?

I know I have brought this up before, but I want to keep mentioning so it doesn't get forgotten and brushed under the carpet as the majority of people may be happy with the proposal, and I haven't seen any other owners of proposed reserved names make any comments. I think if this is allowed to happen, its going to encourage nominet to reserve more names.

I have tried to contact lesley from nominet directly but so far I have had no response.

I don't think that it's fair to you, but I also don't think that 150 exceptions for gov domains are enough to "invalidate" the whole of the proposed release mechanism. Especially when most of those 150 exceptions aren't even generics to begin with, so there is no conflict with existing registrations...

This is something you'll clearly need to fight - and hopefully if others are feeling kind, they'll put in a word as well - but you need to realise that the total number of affected people is very, very small and therefore the number of people who will kick up a loud fuss is also very, very small.

Your best bet is to track down the other affected parties (especially the Independent newspaper) and to try and get some kind of concerted response going.

You need to come up with a WORKABLE alternative solution to take to Nominet. It's insufficient to just say "this isn't fair" - you need to go with "this isn't fair, but how about this instead?"

 

[Edwin]

Have they got a location for it in London yet? I think I missed it if they have announced it.

You will find out the location if you register. They're explicitly not announcing it and are treating it secretively (they refused to tell me until I'd signed up even though I said I needed to know to book an appropriate hotel) - probably because they want to be 100% sure of who's coming and don't want "drop ins" on the day.

Let's just say it's pretty central, in the SW1 postcode.

(Please don't PM me to ask me to spill the beans, I'm not going to. Blame Nominet for the secrecy, don't blame me!)

 

[Retired_Member38]

I'm really struggling to see the general public caring about Royal.co.uk and Food.co.uk. Two domains owned by domain squatters (bear in mind thats how they're going to see you) who've already both made a real nice living from the internet, losing a single domain they weren't using for anything valid anyway (again, they are going to see a parked page for you, a for sale page for them).

You're not really doing yourself any favours to win public sympathy here.

 

[GreyWing]

You will find out the location if you register. They're explicitly not announcing it and are treating it secretively (they refused to tell me until I'd signed up).

Let's just say it's pretty central, in the SW1 postcode.

(Please don't PM me to ask me to spill the beans, I'm not going to. Blame Nominet for the secrecy, don't blame me!)

Is that serious? They are keeping it a secret? hahaha Are Al Qaeda planning on disrupting it or something?

 

[Edwin]

I'm really struggling to see the general public caring about Royal.co.uk and Food.co.uk. Two domains owned by domain squatters (bear in mind thats how they're going to see you) who've already both made a real nice living from the internet, losing a single domain they weren't using for anything valid anyway (again, they are going to see a parked page for you, a for sale page for them).

Blunt, but probably accurate.

If it was me, I'd take the whole list of affected names, identify every "target" (companies that would have got the name under the proposed release mechanism, were it not for the gov exception) and try and unite them into a common response.

That response, as I indicated above, needs to be pragmatic: identify the problem AND provide a workable solution, so that Nominet has a valid alternative to take back to the gov entitites concerned.