20i Reseller Hosting

313 consultation responses - 29-10-13

Discussion in '.UK Domain Name Consultations' started by Stephen, Oct 8, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stephen United Kingdom

    Stephen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,734
    Likes Received:
    13
    Email from nominet today to nom-announce list

    More responses than I predicated.

    I don't know what to make of "and an assessment of the impact of the current proposal"
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2013
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
    articles.co.uk
     
  3. AssetDomains

    AssetDomains Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2010
    Posts:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    69
    Thanks Stephen was just about post this roll on november
     
  4. Edwin

    Edwin Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    9,825
    Likes Received:
    535
    So a bit less than half the number of responses received last time. Not as bad as I feared, considering near-zero publicity and a distinct lack of media interest second time around.
     
  5. Nigel United Kingdom

    Nigel Well-Known Member Acorn Supporter

    Joined:
    May 2005
    Posts:
    3,194
    Likes Received:
    57
    Thanks for posting that Stephen

    313 is a paltry response - down from an already low number of 712 in the first consultation. But that's what happens when you ignore the millions of existing registrants.

    Can't think this is looking good for nominet and their plans. We just need over half of the 313 to voice opposition (i.e. 157) and together with the stark warning from the Information Commissioner that their plans might pose a security risk - see http://www.ico.org.uk/about_us/cons...level-domain-registration-in-uk-july-2013.pdf

    that should hopefully kill off this ill conceived plan. It's certainly going to be very close!
     
  6. julian United Kingdom

    julian Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 2007
    Posts:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    42
    Does not the ico issue become redundant with like for like pairing?

    I think Nom have had their eye on this from the start and these consultations are just a way of making it look like a fair and well thought out process to help with the backlash.

    I was Nominet I still can't see one, decent, concrete reason for it not to go ahead:

    cost issue = no reason
    rebranding issue = a weak easily resolvable reason
    confusion/security issue: = like for like solves it, 18 months no one will care
    maintain the status quo: = no good, need to move forward!
     
  7. Edwin

    Edwin Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    9,825
    Likes Received:
    535
    Why would Nominet want to go forward with like for like? No money in it for them, just a boatload of hassle and aggro from existing customers AND from registrars (who won't make those lovely registration fees from the .uk protection racket but now have more support issues to deal with)
     
  8. Stephen United Kingdom

    Stephen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,734
    Likes Received:
    13
    .co.uk and .uk pairing

    Yes I think fully pairing .co.uk and .uk deals with that ICO security issue.

    No I disagree.

    In V1 Nominet were so convinced themselves that .uk was a new namespace it did not enter their mind or thinking that the existing registrants should be looked after.

    In V2 there was no mention of .co.uk and .uk pairing in the V1 summary of feedback even though several people had mentioned it as an option going forward.

    At the end of V1 they still held on to the "rewriting history to be fair" and that is what they proposed.

    I'm for free 100% .co.uk and .uk pairing.

    But on attending the .uk meetings I could and reading the posts and articles,
    the overwhelming sense I get from the various stakeholders is "please prove .uk would bring benefits and do no damage to the existing UK namespace"
    and I really feel Nominet should take account of that sentiment and request.

    In August Nominet did put recruitment adverts out for new Research assistants, although I would rather see some independent studies.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2013
  9. Stephen United Kingdom

    Stephen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,734
    Likes Received:
    13
    no money for Nominet

    Agree there would be no money for Nominet and based on the previous attitude to pricing that would be a problem but maybe they will see sense and remember they are there to protect and help the UK namespace.

    I'm sure that one of the reasons that pairing is not more widely supported by those that know Nominet, is they feel Nominet would never do it for the lack of money reason, so it is therefore not worth supporting it.

    There was a good quote from the BBC today, that Nominet might want to reflect on;


    I don't see loads of agro from existing customers maybe a backlash from the .me.uk and .org.uk owners that thought they would get the .uk.

    But if they do a full pairing the .co.uk would work as it does now and they are protected if they want to change to .uk later, so little to complain about.

    Agree about the UK registrars might be a problem but they could always just increase their prices to cover the extra time they expect to spend on support.
     
  10. monaghan United Kingdom

    monaghan Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    2,101
    Likes Received:
    71
  11. Edwin

    Edwin Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    9,825
    Likes Received:
    535
    Nominet never alerted all the members, as far as I know.
     
  12. Edwin

    Edwin Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    9,825
    Likes Received:
    535
    No, I don't think that's it. Pairing exposes the pointlessness of the whole exercise since you end up with NOTHING at all different except 2 domains where there was 1 before, plus confused customers/registrants, busier registrars, and a lot of fingers pointed at Nominet. Worse than doing nothing at all, so there's no logical reason for Nominet to take that approach and no reason for people to come forward and support the concept.

    At the moment, they have "justified" their proposal (note the "" - the reasons they've given are pathetically weak, but they ARE reasons) but there is no justification for pairing.
     
  13. monaghan United Kingdom

    monaghan Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    2,101
    Likes Received:
    71
    That says it all really - captured by the board & top 20 :(
     
  14. Stephen United Kingdom

    Stephen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,734
    Likes Received:
    13
    Dont know cannot participate!

    Nominet never advised all their 2856 members about .uk.

    As far as I'm aware they only emailed those on the nom-announce list.

    Others found out from Acorn.

    There was no separate meeting for Nominet members to discuss .uk and no meet Nominet meeting as they did in V1.

    There was an invitation sent to all DPA The Digital Policy Alliance (EURIM) and BCS The Chartered Institute for IT members, which resulted in 10 participant's attending the .uk meeting.
     
  15. splashweb

    splashweb Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    168
    Likes Received:
    2
    on the way forward

    This part would make me feel a lot more comfortable without the last four words. Sounds vague and gives me worries of yet another consultation.
     
  16. Stephen United Kingdom

    Stephen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,734
    Likes Received:
    13
    Nominet registrar meeting

    It should be an interesting Nominet registrar meeting this year if that is the case or if they decide to go ahead with .uk.

    I have asked Nominet for a date but no answer yet!

    They seems to have dropped what they started saying at the end of V1 once they had seen the feedback, which was 'if .uk goes ahead'.
     
  17. Stephen United Kingdom

    Stephen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,734
    Likes Received:
    13
    however weak they maybe

    I did say "one" of the reasons.
    I'm sure another is there are people who don't want .uk and so don't want pairing.

    Any reasons Nominet have used to 'justify' .uk in V2 like still being relevant applies to .uk pairing and offering something to combat the rise of the new gTLD's.

    As stated many times .co.uk and .uk pairing does have advantages over the current proposal and even if you disagree with them, they are still reasons, however weak they maybe.
     
  18. Stephen United Kingdom

    Stephen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,734
    Likes Received:
    13
    not sure who that was sent to

    As mentioned on another post, I believe it was only the nom-announce list that was emailed about .uk not all 2856 members.

    But it got me thinking about the only other current consultation on 'reserved names' created to satisfy the media and Ed Vaizey comment on unsuitable domain names allowed to be registered.

    I checked my email from Nominet (10-09-13) on that consultation and it stated was from policy <policy@nominet.org.uk> and sent to 'Undisclosed recipients:'

    So not sure who that was sent to, maybe me as a registrar, maybe not?
     
  19. bb99 United Kingdom

    bb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    38
    I would have liked to see Nominet telephoning all its members to make them aware of the consultation and to encourage feedback.

    If they can do it for elections, I don't see why they can't do it for something as important as a major change like .uk.
     
  20. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2004
    Posts:
    10,790
    Likes Received:
    291
    well said

    Admin
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.