Press Release changes
Thank you as always your contribution, observations are very welcome.
That's rather an overreach, and I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by referencing the "domaining community" since A) "domaining" is seen as broadly negative, B) there isn't actually the kind of consensus you're outlining, even on Acorn - I'm confident there are plenty of people who don't agree with the "solution" in your report, and C) it's NOT clear that it will be implemented as proposed (it's very likely to go ahead, but we may still have a V3 etc)
I accept not all domainers (maybe even the majority) or readers of the report will agree with my conclusion.
I think there is a difference between those that may agree pairing would be best for UK namespace and those that think the 100% pairing has
no chance of getting implemented,
as it is often quoted that solution does not suit Nominet desire for funds.
I also accept that many have decided that .uk should not go ahead at all, some out of principle and some through fatigue with the matter.
The statement is purely about whether .uk will come, to counter the defence to any question raised about .uk that "it is only a proposal".
I could not find a better way to counter that often used dismissive statement.
I do believe via your own poll at Acorn (the only real UK domaining community):
How likely do you think we are to see a .uk go ahead?
which shows 73.69% of the poll shows .uk will inevitably a very good chance of .uk going ahead. Or 12.63% think it is unlikely to go ahead.
The words used on the Nominet Q & A on the subject, the statements made at the round table,
Nominet's actions and statements to date etc. also support the view that .uk is coming in 2014.
Plus emails I have had about the matter and the lack of media attention on the subject,
the lack of participants outside domaining that attended the London roundtable support that outcome.
Again this utterly unprovable notion of a huge number of victims. I'd take this out entirely, or bury it deep in the press release if you really can't bring yourself to do so. As it is, opening with the least defensible point dramatically weakens the whole press release, when it's possible to dig up data to support other points.
I disagree, now it has been watered down to "a million plus domains" rather than "millions of owners" after your helpful previous comments.
To get more people knowing about .uk, depends on some things happening like Nominet sending out many emails like they do with renewals,
however the information to hand only shows they will send ONE email as otherwise it could be construed as spam selling .uk.
Also I do not believe Nominet will make a real effort on contacting bounced emails and launching an effective awareness .uk campaign.
Also awareness depends on the main UK registrars actively promoting .uk, with offers of huge profit margins
from other new gTLD's that might just might not happen.
Also it would need lots of media exposure over the 6 months, which sadly I don't think will be forth coming.
Plus more awareness assumes their would be a quick and seismic shift to .uk usage and people will pick up on it in the 6 months, I don't think so.
Plus a lack of effort to contact the 7% of domains held outside the UK.
So I stand by my statement and consider to be a central reason to seek alternative allocation methods.
True. But would be more accurate (and read better) if you said "Oldest continuous domain registrant given first priority to register the equivalent .uk domain"
Thanks but trying to keep it as short as possible without misleading the reader.
Partially true. Would be a stronger statement if you took out the part about having to keep paying for the .co.uk renewals, because that's down to personal choice, whereas the higher price is (in the proposal at least) a matter of fact.
Thanks have modified to:
New .uk domain will cost over 100% more than .co.uk and you will still keep paying for the .co.uk renewals to protect your website.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. How does devaluing confidence provide more security?
Thanks have modified to:
Confidence in trusted extensions like .co.uk, .org.uk, .sch.uk etc. will be eroded by claims .uk is more secure.
Which is one of the big arguments at V1, it is done to a lesser extend in V2 but the point is still valid.
Better to say something like "Much greater incidence of phishing attacks and misdirected emails stemming from the prospect of the .co.uk and .uk domains being owned by different parties."
Thanks have modified to:
Security nightmare with different owners of .co.uk and .uk: phishing attacks, misdirected email, scams, cyber-squatting and fraud.
