- Joined
- Apr 5, 2005
- Posts
- 9,851
- Reaction score
- 1,337
The first day was interesting and highlighted to me in a way that blog/forum posts never really could just how wide a range of opinion there is out there - and how ANY solution will have to incorporate at least some compromises that won't please one stakeholder group or another.
Let me just say that it's not only domainers who see issues with the current proposals - and it's certainly not as if every registrar is baying for the new extension! Also, Nominet were out in force and seemed very willing to listen and learn (7 or 8 staff + a contractor seconded to the consultation) so it's not as if this is all falling on deaf ears.
That said, it was one session of 5 and those 5 are just a small part of the whole consultation process, so what impact that will have I can't say.
I found this diversity of opinions very useful in clarifying my own thoughts about certain aspects of the proposal. For example, the security/trust/safety features aren't actually "inherently bad" but they've just seemed that way to me because they would A) be mandatory and B) only open to .uk registrants.
During the discussion yesterday I put forward the suggestion that Nominet could decouple this aspect from the domain name itself and offer it as a separate service to any *.uk registrant, for instance by granting their planned "trustmark" to any domain owner under any extension that Nominet is responsible for if they undertake the additional validation/verification steps (and pay the appropriate fee). This trustmark could then be "distributed" by Nominet to any site that wanted to take a feed (e.g. Yellow Pages/Local sites) as a list of URLs that have earned it, and they could in turn display it against the listings of any page relating to that site.
That would give "added value" to the trustmark itself (and greater visibility) but also added value to the sites showing it (e.g. Yell, Google Pages) because it's one more piece of "useful" data to share with their visitors beyond a map and address, phone number and opening hours. Maybe at some level of uptake, they could even do a deal whereby Google would display it against Adwords listings that had a landing page URL on a "safe" domain.
Whether any of the above will happen, I've no idea - but it's an intriguing thought and it would pull the fangs of the hugely unfair ".uk is better/safer/more secure than .co.uk" issue and set them on a near-level playing field. (It does nothing to address unfair allocation issues, but those are a separate battle) It would also drive the base price of .uk down towards that of the other extensions (though I suspect there might still be a bit of a "premium" baked in)
Let me just say that it's not only domainers who see issues with the current proposals - and it's certainly not as if every registrar is baying for the new extension! Also, Nominet were out in force and seemed very willing to listen and learn (7 or 8 staff + a contractor seconded to the consultation) so it's not as if this is all falling on deaf ears.
That said, it was one session of 5 and those 5 are just a small part of the whole consultation process, so what impact that will have I can't say.
I found this diversity of opinions very useful in clarifying my own thoughts about certain aspects of the proposal. For example, the security/trust/safety features aren't actually "inherently bad" but they've just seemed that way to me because they would A) be mandatory and B) only open to .uk registrants.
During the discussion yesterday I put forward the suggestion that Nominet could decouple this aspect from the domain name itself and offer it as a separate service to any *.uk registrant, for instance by granting their planned "trustmark" to any domain owner under any extension that Nominet is responsible for if they undertake the additional validation/verification steps (and pay the appropriate fee). This trustmark could then be "distributed" by Nominet to any site that wanted to take a feed (e.g. Yellow Pages/Local sites) as a list of URLs that have earned it, and they could in turn display it against the listings of any page relating to that site.
That would give "added value" to the trustmark itself (and greater visibility) but also added value to the sites showing it (e.g. Yell, Google Pages) because it's one more piece of "useful" data to share with their visitors beyond a map and address, phone number and opening hours. Maybe at some level of uptake, they could even do a deal whereby Google would display it against Adwords listings that had a landing page URL on a "safe" domain.
Whether any of the above will happen, I've no idea - but it's an intriguing thought and it would pull the fangs of the hugely unfair ".uk is better/safer/more secure than .co.uk" issue and set them on a near-level playing field. (It does nothing to address unfair allocation issues, but those are a separate battle) It would also drive the base price of .uk down towards that of the other extensions (though I suspect there might still be a bit of a "premium" baked in)
Last edited:
