.UK Announced

contact all registrants

Nigel said:

..... So Nominet could have emailed limited companies and other 'corporate subscribers' to ask for feedback. I cannot think of any reason why a responsible registry would not have taken up this opportunity.

There are around 1.3m Limited Companies in the UK. Most Limited Companies will have a website and most will operate from a .co.uk domain name. There is simply no excuse for not reaching out to these companies. It's worth noting that the Data Protection Act also does not apply to Limited Companies. I cannot believe that Nominet are not aware of these facts.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that researched post.

Also I think it is worth pointing out that under there "contract" with all registrars I believe Nominet have the right to contact all registrants with relevant information that would effect them.

Although nominet decided unilaterally that .uk was to be a new product rather than a migration that many have suggested it should be, they still gave some rights to existing registrants and therefore those registrants should be consulted, to find out if they feel those rights were adequate?

markb said:

I don't think think its something the any of the dragons would be interested in, they are usually only interested in their own companies, and they are not small businesses. They have a lot of money behind them and always make sure they have trademarks filed, so the direct.uk proposals wouldnt effect them directly.

I'm talking about the millions of very small businesses where people work from home or small offices and have .co.uk websites, without any trademarks filed to protect their names, or use more generic names where they cannot trademark their names. These businesses that don't have a lot of spare money are the ones that are going to lose their corresponding domain names under the proposals.

Click to expand...

Very well put Mark - I think the opposition campaign has wind in its sails. I think most pressure will come through MPs raising this in Parliament and Media interest. We need to get Labour MPs involved. We need a Labour MP to question the statement made by Ed Vaizey on 8th January 2013 when he was asked what was being done to protect small businesses with .co.uk addresses. He did not answer the question directly and said that:

"Nominet has informed Government that its consultation is gathering perspectives from a broad range of stakeholders—including small businesses and their representatives—to inform their decision-making. Nominet has stated that it will be carefully considering that feedback in line with the company’s public purpose."

Yet we know that Nominet did not directly contact any of its existing registrants including the millions of small businesses with .co.uk addresses. I believe that information that should have been divulged to Parliament. Mr Vaizey says the information he provided came from Nominet. It wouldn't be hard for a Labour MP to score some points on this. If you have a Labour MP in your constituency what harm would it do to collate some information and send it off. That's how monaghan on here got the question raised by his MP. That reminds me - I've had no response from Mr Vaizey to my two emails - think I'll phone his office.

local MP

miked said:

Another MP to add to those that have made representations to Nominet: my local MP Clive Betts (Sheffield South-East), who wrote to them after meeting me in early December....

Click to expand...

Thanks for the post it prompted me into action, as although I have written to several MP's about .uk, apart from Stephen McPartland had received no real responses, so I thought I'd have another go.

So I resent my message to my local MP Caroline Nokes MP attaching "What is wrong with the Nominet .uk proposal?" with a bit of update information and now she says she is going to bring it up with the Minister and I have an appointment with her to bring her up to date on .uk.

markb said:

I'm talking about the millions of very small businesses where people work from home or small offices and have .co.uk websites, without any trademarks filed to protect their names, or use more generic names where they cannot trademark their names. These businesses that don't have a lot of spare money are the ones that are going to lose their corresponding domain names under the proposals.

Click to expand...

This is the point that my MP (Stephen McPartland) seems to have picked out of my correspondence and seems to be trying to address.

The small guy who "got" the Internet early on and registered a good domain is going to suffer to the guys with the money, surely if we are going to use the Internet seriously for business in the UK we NEED these little guys so MUST be backing them, NOT handing all the good real estate over to those with the deepest pockets.

markb said:

I would say one of the obvious answers to why they havent asked for feedback from all domain owners, or just limited companies, is the fact that they wouldnt have the manpower and time to read and process all the feedback from them. It was probably just easier to ask a limited number of people for their responses.

Click to expand...

Collating results from a poll wouldn't require any additional manpower. Send out the emails containing the poll at the touch of a button, and they will be able to see in an instant how many .co.uk registrants want 'Mr Deep Pockets' to grab their corresponding .uk domains.

Sample poll

Dear Registrant, Please choose one or more of the following:
1. I would like to be offered first refusal of my corresponding .uk domain
2. I would like to be automatically awarded the corresponding .uk version of my domain
3. I would like to go to auction against Mr Deep Pockets for the corresponding version of my .uk domain
4. I would prefer Mr Deep Pockets to claim my corresponding .uk domain by him merely waving his 'very ridiculously' classified trademark rights at Nominet.
5. .uk should not be introduced because it would create a lot of confusion for individuals and businesses.
6. .uk should be introduced as it's what I've always wanted for Christmas

It would not be difficult to collate the results of the above if a poll was sent out to some 1,000,000 registrants. All Nominet needs to do is sit back and wait for people to respond over a given period of time.

I've been doing a bit of research into Nominet's statements on domain security, cybersquatting etc. They used to say that similar domains being registered by third parties was a major concern. That threat seems to have been swept under the carpet and they now say that domain security would be improved by security features to the domain, validation and ongoing maintenance of the domain service. No mention at all about the serious threats posed to business by means of a competitor or malicious person/company registering a confusingly similar domain. Here's what Phil Kingsland, Director of Communications and Marketing at Nominet has said in a number of previous articles:

"The Internet offers a number of opportunities to market a brand online, but the domain name real-estate market is big business and you need to take steps to protect your brand. For example, someone else could try to take advantage of your brand awareness by registering a similar domain name to capture traffic when customers misspell domain names, often known as typosquatting. They may then divert the web traffic to another site to profit from consumers looking for your site. Alternatively, successful brands may be targeted by cybersquatters who register domain names that are likely to become popular and then sell them on at an inflated price...".

Here is the full article
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2012/05/22/five-domain-name-tips-help-market-your-brand


"Once a company has successfully registered the right domain name for its business it is important to protect it from falling into the wrong hands such as cybersquatters — ignoring their existence can be an expensive risk.

What is cybersquatting?

Cybersquatting is where someone chooses to register, sell or use a domain name with the sole purpose of profiting from another brand’s trademark. For instance, if Nominet has built up a brand around nominet.org.uk, someone could register nominet.co.uk and try and sell it to Nominet for a profit."

Here's the full article
http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/business_advice.php?CID=3&AID=1488&PGID=1


"Phil Kingsland, director of marketing at .uk registry Nominet, argued that businesses could struggle to manage the proliferation of new gTLDs when they come on the market, and must decide whether to register defensively, or risk cyber squatting or lost revenue.

"Their concern will be how to find out about all of them," he said. "There should be one area of the business responsible for registering domains, and it needs to understand the value of having a new domain and the potential traffic that could be lost otherwise."Here's the full article:
http://www.bit.com.au/News/140090,new-generic-tlds-will-open-cyber-squatting-floodgates.aspx

And compare those statements with the article he provided to the Guardian at this link when Mr Kingsland argued for the introduction of .uk - a safer 'more trusted' product.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-net...2012/dec/17/value-secure-uk-namespace-nominet

Confusion, cyber crime and loss of traffic caused by similarities in domain names is, it appears, no longer a security issue. I would however rather trust Mr Kingsland's previous warnings, the ones published before .uk appeared on the scene. I think the confusion between .uk and .co.uk - two designated commercial domains - will however be much greater than the .org.uk and .co.uk example Mr Kingsland gave above (see bolded sentence).

I don't think nominet would be too happy if someone else registered the domain nominet.uk . Obviously they would never let this happen, but they are obviously more than happy to let it happen to potentially hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Nominet should be making sure this doesnt happen and thinking about how they can protect small businesses, who have already invested in .co.uk domains for their businesses.

markb said:

I don't think nominet would be too happy if someone else registered the domain nominet.uk . Obviously they would never let this happen, but they are obviously more than happy to let it happen to potentially hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Nominet should be making sure this doesnt happen and thinking about how they can protect small businesses, who have already invested in .co.uk domains for their businesses.

Click to expand...

Spot on!

This was originally posted in the .wales thread by Acorn member: Bulkhorn. I thought it was well worth reposting it here...

bulkcorn said:

The above options as offered in the .cymru/.wales weren't offered in the .uk consultation. They should have been offered.

---
Directly link the registries so that if someone registers example.cymru then the same label in the other domain (i.e. example.wales) is reserved for use by the registrant and vice versa.
---

---
Rather than automatically reserve the alternative domain name as set out in option 1 above, offer the registrant first refusal of the alternative domain name (if it is not already registered) at a reduced rate. If this is not taken up by the registrant then the alternative name will be available for registration.
---

The above options as offered in the .cymru/.wales weren't offered in the .uk consultation. They should have been offered.

Click to expand...

- Rob

yep

Great point ,

should be re named Nomicon

its so Gung Ho

Via Graeme

Maybe we can cite discrimination ??

that Wales gets it and we don't !!!

Just read the other post about the legal action against Graeme and what interested me more than the article mentioned in the post http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1168103/nominet-will-sue-member-alleged-libel-chief-executive-lesley-cowley/ is the comment at the bottom.

Is Lesley Cowley being investigated by SFO. Can anyone confirm this?

If so, then as commented Nominets M&A's require her to resign or the Director's to remove her from the position.

As this has not happened, this calls in to doubt the legitamacy of the whole board - hence the members should be able to demand the removal of all key Director positions? Simple due diligence on behalf of the shareholders/stakeholders or am I missing something?

Latest reply from Eleanor Bradley. As you can see a lot of my questions are not being answered. However she does confirm 'However, DCMS officials and the Minister have been kept informed throughout the consultation process, including the steps we had taken to involve stakeholders.'. So why wasn't Parliament told that existing registrants including all the 'small businesses with .co.uk addresses' were not emailed about the direct.uk consultation? I'll be writing to Mr Vaizey again.

"Dear Nigel,

Thank you for your recent email.

With regards to the question raised in parliament, Minister Ed Vaizey MP made it clear that Nominet’s operations are not regulated by Government. However, DCMS officials and the Minister have been kept informed throughout the consultation process, including the steps we had taken to involve stakeholders.

I can confirm that we did not feel able to contact registrants regarding the direct consultation, and that we did receive legal advice on this.

Regarding the legal advice, we are under no obligation to disclose either the nature or the details of legal advice received by the company, and have no intention of doing so.

I appreciate that you would want more detail than we can supply, but hope you find the points of clarification above helpful.


Kind regards

Eleanor"

TinkyWinky said:

Just read the other post about the legal action against Graeme and what interested me more than the article mentioned in the post http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1168103/nominet-will-sue-member-alleged-libel-chief-executive-lesley-cowley/ is the comment at the bottom.

Is Lesley Cowley being investigated by SFO. Can anyone confirm this?

If so, then as commented Nominets M&A's require her to resign or the Director's to remove her from the position.

As this has not happened, this calls in to doubt the legitamacy of the whole board - hence the members should be able to demand the removal of all key Director positions? Simple due diligence on behalf of the shareholders/stakeholders or am I missing something?

Click to expand...

I would imagine that IF she is being investigated, she would only have to resign IF she were subsequently found guilty. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies here as in any other situation. Note: I'm choosing my words carefully.

europa.eu

markb said:

I don't think nominet would be too happy if someone else registered the domain nominet.uk . Obviously they would never let this happen, but they are obviously more than happy to let it happen to potentially hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Nominet should be making sure this doesnt happen and thinking about how they can protect small businesses, who have already invested in .co.uk domains for their businesses.

Click to expand...

http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/basicSearch.html

Enter search term "Nominet" and you find others apart from our Nominet (UK)have a European trademark on that word it seems to me?

Maybe/almost certainly SOCIETE GENERALE will not want to enter a bidding war for nominet.uk
but it shows how ill thought out the Nominet plan is for .uk involving Trademark holders the way they have.

Is Nominets attempt to introduce .uk as a business extension, cybersquatting.

In effect, if it was introduced, on day one Nominet would technically own 10,000,000 .uk domains, aproximately 9,000,000 of them with a co.uk equivalent and would be able to hold 9,000,000 co uk owners to ransom for financial gain, or threaten to sell their equivalent .uk domains to a competitor.

Does this amount to cybersquatting ?

websaway said:

Is Nominets attempt to introduce .uk as a business extension, cybersquatting.

In effect, if it was introduced, on day one Nominet would technically own 10,000,000 .uk domains, aproximately 9,000,000 of them with a co.uk equivalent and would be able to hold 9,000,000 co uk owners to ransom for financial gain, or threaten to sell their equivalent .uk domains to a competitor.

Does this amount to cybersquatting ?

Click to expand...

Nominet used to think that registering similar domains, with a view to profiting from existing domains, amounted to cybersquatting. There will be thousands of successful .uk registrants that will seek to profit from the .co.uk registrants in terms of traffic and resale. Yet Nominet are totally silent on that risk. The Government Minister Ed Vaizey was also silent when asked a question on behalf of 'small businesses with .co.uk addresses' question in Parliament on 8th January 2013. But here is a statement from Nominet's Phil Kingsland. One he made BEFORE direct.uk was launched:

"Once a company has successfully registered the right domain name for its business it is important to protect it from falling into the wrong hands such as cybersquatters — ignoring their existence can be an expensive risk.

What is cybersquatting?

Cybersquatting is where someone chooses to register, sell or use a domain name with the sole purpose of profiting from another brand’s trademark. For instance, if Nominet has built up a brand around nominet.org.uk, someone could register nominet.co.uk and try and sell it to Nominet for a profit."
Here's the full article
http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com...ID=1488&PGID=1

http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/business_advice.php?AID=1488#.UQYzAWeDPhA

What an awful explanation. Any lay person would come away from that thinking any mark or "rights" gives a complainant the green right to pursue that line of thought on any domain registrant out there.

foz said:

http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/business_advice.php?AID=1488#.UQYzAWeDPhA

What an awful explanation. Any lay person would come away from that thinking any mark or "rights" gives a complainant the green right to pursue that line of thought on any domain registrant out there.

Click to expand...

The article is the truth, and nothing but the truth, but not the WHOLE truth. In other words, what Phil said is "correct" because he's used qualifiers like "may" and "could" - it's absolutely true that brand names and trademark infringements may be indications of cybersquatting.

That's especially the case when, as he puts it: "Where the name only has value because of the reputation built up in the unregistered name by the claimant, that money is made on the back of goodwill, which the original trader put effort into creating." which is the same point I've made on many appraisal threads containing "obvious TM" names.

However, the article could definitely be improved (the WHOLE truth) by adding a paragraph or two explaining the concept of generic/descriptive domains and the fact that trademarks on words that are themselves generic give much weaker rights than trademarks (or even unregistered rights) on made-up words and expressions.

All that said, I didn't see anything factually incorrect about what he wrote. The Nominet example is spot on: "nominet" is a made-up word, and thanks to the Nominet we know and love/loathe, it's quite a "famous" brand too. So somebody registering Nominet.co.uk WOULD be cybersquatting.

A DRS has two prongs to succeed, rights by the complaint and abuse (bad faith) by the registrant. I am sick and tired of people going on about rights only as the determining factor of cyber squatting.

foz said:

A DRS has two prongs to succeed, rights by the complaint and abuse (bad faith) by the registrant. I am sick and tired of people going on about rights only as the determining factor of cyber squatting.

Click to expand...

That's too simplistic. If you register "madeupfamousbrandname.co.uk" you have no rights in it no matter how you use it. The act of registration itself is often sufficient to demonstrate bad faith in such situations when it comes to what trademark law refers to as "arbitrary marks" which are the strongest form of trademark.

This article is an interesting read http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/analysis.html (yes, it applies to the UDRP, but the points it makes have a lot of validity for the DRS too)