Org.uk domains, legally o.k to use?

May sound silly, but i am working with a company who have heard from their "head of online" that org.uk's cannot be used for commercial sites. Whilst i know there is something about this and thats their original intention, is it a legal thing or a recommendation.

I am waiting to speak to a Nominet lawyer but i wondered if anyone could clear it up as it is causing me some issues.

Thanks

Rob

 

nominet.org.uk

 

According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk

 

rofl...........

 

I think that answers it

Grant

 

Kinda Like Crossing the Road not at traffic lights, its illegal and carries a £60 fine, and police can arrest you, but none ever do.

 

That's the one, thanks Grant and everyone else who posted

 

No problem, it does also say this though:

Grant......................

 

The keyword in the above is "intended". ...... Not "must"

.

 

It would impact sales if they didn't allow .org.uk to be used for commercial purposes. Also, it would create problems with existing sites. There's nothing to worry about, in my view.

 

I remember reading AUDA (.au) cancelling a whole bunch of org.au's owned by one Registrant because it was deemed to be a commercial enterprise. Not sure to what extreme Nominet would take things as AUDA are very strict.

 

I have Solicitor contact at Nominet if you have no joy seeking a clarification.

It's actually a very good question and I would also be interested to know the layman's answer by Nominet.

 

Dont ask too many questions or those T's and C's might just get changed! LOL

They seen okay atm...

 

Its a good point in a way, much like 'what if Tuvalu sinks' with .TV

Then you are into the realms of risk / reward....!

 

It it went badly, I don't think nom would risk making it retrospective so only new regs from the day it came into force would be at immediate risk.

Looking at these numbers http://www.nominet.org.uk/intelligence/statistics/registration/registrationsarchive/ they would be potentially be throwing away a million or 2 a year on new regs, and several million on existing regs.

Ty posted a link, for the total doms regged but I can't find it, it was 5-600,000, so without guessing how many are legit, its potentially millions per year if they cut it retroactively.

Remember that surplus ?, They like their big wages don't they

 

Skinners right. They would have to start with new regs. There is no way on earth they would be able to have a call back because their own t&c's leaves the barn door wide open and what would follow would be a lot of time spent in court.


.

 

The T&C most probably would not change retrospectively, but might include “change of ownership” clause which would wipe-out the sales potential. But I don’t think this would happen, to much money would be lost for the Nominet itself (registrations, renewals, transfers, etc.). So I don’t think it’s a good business decision for them as well.

 

Use those .org.uk's how you want. There's a lot of confusion about what a 'not for profit' organisation is because the phrase is taken at face value. In reality, you can make as much paper profit as you want, 'not for profits' generally dont pay dividends to shareholders, that's it. You can rack up those reserves just the same as nominet.org.uk do, you can pay thumping fat salaries to the directors, just like nominet.org.uk do. And yes, you can pay yourself bonuses....

 

I rang them a couple of years ago to hear from horse's mouth, and they said absolutley no probs, use for what you want.
Just ask in an email and get in print if anyone is that concerned.
Theyve been around for as long as .co.uk with no problems so why people would start worrying is beyond me
Lets face it, nominet are becoming more commercial not otherway round
After selling off the 1 and 2 characters they'll be getting the kitchen sink out

 

AUDA cancelled those org.au's just recently (2009/2010?), so it would have been a decision out of left field considering the length of time they have been made available to register. Not sure if the terms were updated. I think the owner claimed he had lost A$100K worth of investment.