Some updates to Nominet's Q&A about .uk

[Edwin]

Nominet have added some new clarifications to their Q&A about .uk. As well as rewording a few of the existing questions, they've also added some new ones at the foot of the document.

As far as I can tell, nothing in what's been newly published "changes anything" i.e. it is entirely meant as clarification.

I found this particularly interesting:

Who gets the rights to the .uk equivalent when there are potentially two competing claims neither of which is a a .co.uk or a .org.uk?
According to our database, there are only two instances where this happens. We’re yet to set out the final policy and operational guidance for this scenario such as these and expect to publish detailed final rules by February 2014.

I hope that we can all agree that it's simply not worth debating any further a corner case with just two instances!

Anyway, I recommend you head over and acquaint yourself with the changes if you want to be bang up to date with the .uk allocation/release process.
http://www.nominet.org.uk/how-participate/policy-development/IntroducingSecondLevelDomains/qanda

 

[Edwin]

Ok, there is one change. But only in the sense that there was no information before and now there is some.

Will second-level registrants be able to effectively set themselves up as new third-level registries?
No, we intend to prohibit this, as indicated in the consultations.

In other words, I take that to mean that domain owners will be free to set up subdomains of .uk domains for their own use, but not cede the rights to use these subdomains to others.

Given that was one of the main "danger" cases various people highlighted in their responses i.e. the ability to set up legitimate-looking sites on somebody else's subdomains and use them for scamming, I think that's a good move on Nominet's part.

 

[diablo]

Thanks for the above Edwin.

 

[invincible]

Given that was one of the main "danger" cases various people highlighted in their responses i.e. the ability to set up legitimate-looking sites on somebody else's subdomains and use them for scamming, I think that's a good move on Nominet's part.

How on earth are they going to legally prohibit people selling sub domains in forthcoming .uk domain names when one can already do so in .{co|me|org}.uk? Will it be one rule for .uk and another for .{co|me|org}.uk or will there be a new rule applied across all four extensions?


(from iPhone)

 

[crc]

Presumably they are going to address this in the new Terms and Conditions of Domain Name Registration for .uk. It hasn't been included previously because it wasn't that relevant. No real demand for e.g. loans.web.org.uk, however loans.web.uk for example or similar could be a different story!

Nominet clearly need to scrub this out because as well as other possible impacts, it would severely put a dampener on some of their .uk ambitions. An emergence of numerous new third level quality subdomains could put further nails in the coffins of .org.uk, .me.uk and even maybe .co.uk and in doing so... take some of their much prized new revenue away from them.

This it looks like it is something, like so many others that has only largely occurred to them after the fact!?


Would be very interesting to know how the argument played out legally, I suspect if the owner of web.uk or shop.uk etc. tried taking it to the courts they might not be in a good position given the registered the new name according to the new terms and conditions applying to it. Perhaps there could be some anti-competition or monopoly / European laws that could be invoked? I wonder if any other registries already have banned this?

Certainly I believe such domains as subsectors of .uk if set-up would be just as useful commercially in their way as the hundreds of new Gtlds (Not that much then in many cases many of you would argue!). A smaller market size, but probably much more commercially viable as relatively cheap to set up and run.

 

[Edwin]

This it looks like it is something, like so many others that has only largely occurred to them after the fact!?

Not really. Nominet raised it before anyone else did. It was already in V1 i.e. in the October 2012 consultation document.

Remember, V3 is just a "summary" at the moment - the full details should be out in February 2014 (hopefully). It is also no longer a consultation i.e. we will get what we will get.

 

[WalkinDude]

Presumably they are going to address this in the new Terms and Conditions of Domain Name Registration for .uk. It hasn't been included previously because it wasn't that relevant. No real demand for e.g. loans.web.org.uk, however loans.web.uk for example or similar could be a different story!

Nominet clearly need to scrub this out because as well as other possible impacts, it would severely put a dampener on some of their .uk ambitions. An emergence of numerous new third level quality subdomains could put further nails in the coffins of .org.uk, .me.uk and even maybe .co.uk and in doing so... take some of their much prized new revenue away from them.

This it looks like it is something, like so many others that has only largely occurred to them after the fact!?


Would be very interesting to know how the argument played out legally, I suspect if the owner of web.uk or shop.uk etc. tried taking it to the courts they might not be in a good position given the registered the new name according to the new terms and conditions applying to it. Perhaps there could be some anti-competition or monopoly / European laws that could be invoked? I wonder if any other registries already have banned this?

Certainly I believe such domains as subsectors of .uk if set-up would be just as useful commercially in their way as the hundreds of new Gtlds (Not that much then in many cases many of you would argue!). A smaller market size, but probably much more commercially viable as relatively cheap to set up and run.

+1

Don't see how they can stop people doing it, but your reasoning is sound.

 

[crc]

I think that's a good move on Nominet's part.

If you had 3 or 4 of the best possible .uk domains to sell subdomains under in your portfolio wouldn't you be interested in looking at setting up a .uk version of Centralnic if it were permitted?

 

[crc]

Not really. Nominet raised it before anyone else did. It was already in V1 i.e. in the October 2012 consultation document.

Ok my apologies, fair dues to Nominet on this occassion, a bad assumption on my behalf - perhaps a reflection of my loss of faith in the organisation to a degree!

 

[Stephen]

.com.de

If you had 3 or 4 of the best possible .uk domains to sell subdomains under in your portfolio wouldn't you be interested in looking at setting up a .uk version of Centralnic if it were permitted?

.com.de was permitted to sell subdomains.

As a basis of argument UK is trying to emulate other cctld's.

V1 did mention sub domains in some depth but V2 & V3 hardly anything.

It is only the last new Q & A that Edwin pointed out for V3, cannot recall it in V3 summary with any prominence.

 

[crc]

Ok my apologies, fair dues to Nominet on this occassion, a bad assumption on my behalf - perhaps a reflection of my loss of faith in the organisation to a degree!

So they had given due prior consideration from the start to major factors that might impact their potential revenue - perhaps I shouldn't be surprised ;-)

 

[WalkinDude]

............

 

[crc]

.com.de was permitted to sell subdomains.

So it's allowed in .de without restrictions it appears then.

That precise example can't happen with .uk though regardless I wouldn't have thought. Registration of 'com' and all those strings matching Gtlds (historically) have always been prevented under .uk domains.

Whereas www.com.de was in theory previously just like any other .de domain I think.

 

[crc]

What's to stop you selling it as 'advertising space'.

That's a good idea. There are no doubt many potential opportunities to explore that the changes will create. On a big scale opening up a domain for subdomain registration Centralnic style is just one potential way, and won't apply to many people.

On a larger scale, even if this is prohibited, surely nothing can be done to stopping you lease use of some of the most useful subdomains of good domains like this.

This limited subletting will be applicable for a much greater range of domains out there too so many people could benefit from doing it potentially.

 

[Edwin]

If you had 3 or 4 of the best possible .uk domains to sell subdomains under in your portfolio wouldn't you be interested in looking at setting up a .uk version of Centralnic if it were permitted?

No. I find Centralnic to be a borderline scam - they're selling something ("subdomains") and yet - mainly via their partner registrars - they're dressing them up as something they're not ("real domains"). You have much less protection with a Centralnic subdomain because the master domain is owned by a private firm - just ask the people who got stiffed on .gb.com when it got pulled http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/01/thousands_of_gb_dot_com_sites_go_dark/

And my answer is despite all the possibilities that having Britain.co.uk opens up with regard to subdomains.

 

[crc]

There is no doubt Centralnic has some questionable business practices. I have had a few customers on their domains in the past and they had no idea they weren't a "real" domain. They have long since passed themselves off as something they are not and got away with it in my view.

Following Stephen's comments on .com.de earlier I looked at www.com.de to find this too is a Centralnic operation. How they describe it on the website would make anyone, even someone familiar with domains think it is was a new official Denic backed domain, or at very least a collaboration.

I respect your integrity on this and .britain.co.uk is a great domain name. I still think there is nothing inherently wrong in principal with selling subdomains to some degree at domain.uk as long as you do it ethically and make it clear to customers exactly what they are buying and the limitations.

But perhaps if Centralnic had done this as they should the wouldn't have sold many!

 

[Edwin]

Yes, CentralNic's PR department is very slick when it comes to blurring the lines between what is an official, recognised domain, and what is something cooked up on the back of one of their own names (or, more and more frequently, off the back of a "silent" partner's name)

I have been warning against them practically since the day they first opened their doors. It's of their own making - had they been "honest" I would have nothing against their (much smaller) business.

 

[invincible]

No. I find Centralnic to be a borderline scam - they're selling something ("subdomains") and yet - mainly via their partner registrars - they're dressing them up as something they're not ("real domains"). You have much less protection with a Centralnic subdomain because the master domain is owned by a private firm - just ask the people who got stiffed on .gb.com when it got pulled http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/01/thousands_of_gb_dot_com_sites_go_dark/

And my answer is despite all the possibilities that having Britain.co.uk opens up with regard to subdomains.

An article from The Guardian, in 2000, about CentralNic calling their sub domains "...the fool's gold of the internet."

Also looks like someone sued CentralNic back in 2012.

 

[jasman]

You should be able to do whatever you like with your subdomains. If someone leases out a subdomain to someone who conducts illegal activity on it, then the buck stops with whoever owns the master domain. If Nominet really think this issue poses a stability threat, then they should have decided not to release .uk domains at all. But they want to have their cake and eat it. It's just sour grapes, they don't like the thought of domainers profiting by selling subdomains or that it might threaten their .co.uk revenue stream.

 

[crc]

You should be able to do whatever you like with your subdomains. If someone leases out a subdomain to someone who conducts illegal activity on it, then the buck stops with whoever owns the master domain. If Nominet really think this issue poses a stability threat, then they should have decided not to release .uk domains at all. But they want to have their cake and eat it. It's just sour grapes, they don't like the thought of domainers profiting by selling subdomains or that it might threaten their .co.uk revenue stream.

Completely agree!