Been Interesting

[Bailey]

Nice to say hello again fellows. And I have been following all the "Public threads"

The bottom line is "self-interest" dictates.

It has been funny to read how people steer/adapt their course around the nom proposals. (I'm still working out Stephen)

PS still owe one member some cash here on Acorn (pleased to see I haven't been bad-mouthed) thanks mate

 

[Stephen]

working out Stephen

Nice to say hello again fellows. And I have been following all the "Public threads"

The bottom line is "self-interest" dictates.

It has been funny to read how people steer/adapt their course around the nom proposals. (I'm still working out Stephen)

PS still owe one member some cash here on Acorn (pleased to see I haven't been bad-mouthed) thanks mate

Well the promise to help publize any ".uk feedback" regardless of whether it is "for .uk, against .uk or has an alternative proposal" will probably make the job to work me out even harder for you.

see thread http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/uk-domain-name-consultations/118585-view-other-uk-feedback-4.html#post460026

There is not long until the 23rd September and the end of the consultation period for .uk, I would rather concentrate on .uk issues.

Before that there is the small matter of the registrar agreement closing as well.

I do have self-interest, in .uk version 1 it was not until 2 months after it started did I really look at the proposal
and see what it meant for me, I had spent a massive amount of time by then.

Like most domainers the current proposal is fine for me as a domainer (but could be better).
But as people we all have other hats and with some of those hats the current .uk proposal is just not right.

I defy anybody to read the articulate feedback of Alex Bligh and say no leave it as it is.

http://blog.alex.org.uk/2013/08/25/net-into-dire-muck-an-anagram-of-nominet-direct-uk/

I have sent out my Report over the Bank holiday weekend to many

Report can be downloaded at http://www.youruk.org.uk/

Maybe you can help me in answering a question I received back this morning?

"Why do nominet want to do this?"

 

[Bailey]

Stephen, my comment is not meant with disrespect, just a focus on your focus. You put so much together (in effort) I have to ask (or indeed question )what your drive is ?

There is some Americanisms ? in your text. But even to a casual observer you have been prolific. I would be interested to know what drives you so soundly.

 

[Stephen]

chat over a drink

Stephen, my comment is not meant with disrespect, just a focus on your focus. You put so much together (in effort) I have to ask (or indeed question )what your drive is ?

There is some Americanisms ? in your text. But even to a casual observer you have been prolific. I would be interested to know what drives you so soundly.

Well if you are at the Domainer meeting in London on the 11th September, arranged by Andrew Bennett, we could have a chat over a drink!

But still interested in your views as a long standing and respected member of Acorn on "Why Nominet are doing it"?

Well back to putting together my feedback to Nominet....

 

[Sam]

........

 

[Bailey]

I'm gonna have a little dig at you here Stephen. (So without reference) to sub-text or document X. Surely it's impossible to portray yourself as A) a casual observer B) A "no gain, no win" observer yet have so many over-riding views.

It doesn't add up

 

[Stephen]

can we please move on

I'm gonna have a little dig at you here Stephen. (So without reference) to sub-text or document X. Surely it's impossible to portray yourself as A) a casual observer B) A "no gain, no win" observer yet have so many over-riding views.

It doesn't add up

I don't recall as ever saying I'm a casual observer. I committed 3 months of my time to the previous V1 .uk proposal.

And I'm not sure what "no gain , no win" means?

If my alternative proposal was adopted of 100% linking .uk and .co.uk, then I would gain as I believe would the UK namespace.

As I have stated that their should be no charge at all for .uk to .co.uk owners, as under my proposal there is little cost to Nominet.
I would gain as would the owners of the other 5,000,000 plus .uk domains as they would not have to pay the £5 p.a. protection to Nominet.

It would be quick and easy to do, although I have suggested that Nominet do a study into the effects of such linking and have the matter debated to deal with any flaws and check it would be beneficial for the UK namespace before anything was done.

But more importantly the security matters that plague the last and current proposal would be removed and the .org.uk could go ahead with their purpose as a tld for not for profit websites.

I do hope Nominet open up .info.uk and .net.uk in a controlled way, if it is proven that the UK namespace really needs more UK domains.

The owner could decide if they wanted to rebrand to .uk or keep .co.uk as it is in a time scale that suits them.

There would not be 2 sales form 1 domain as some domainers would want but that would reduce the security problems that we would otherwise face under the current proposal.

Now maybe you would answer my question about "Nominet's motives?"

Or add something to the .uk debate?

 

[websaway]

I don't recall as ever saying I'm a casual observer. I committed 3 months of my time to the previous V1 .uk proposal.

And I'm not sure what "no gain , no win" means?

If my alternative proposal was adopted of 100% linking .uk and .co.uk, then I would gain as I believe would the UK namespace.

As I have stated that their should be no charge at all for .uk to .co.uk owners, as under my proposal there is little cost to Nominet.
I would gain as would the owners of the other 5,000,000 plus .uk domains as they would not have to pay the £5 p.a. protection to Nominet.

It would be quick and easy to do, although I have suggested that Nominet do a study into the effects of such linking and have the matter debated to deal with any flaws and check it would be beneficial for the UK namespace before anything was done.

But more importantly the security matters that plague the last and current proposal would be removed and the .org.uk could go ahead with their purpose as a tld for not for profit websites.

I do hope Nominet open up .info.uk and .net.uk in a controlled way, if it is proven that the UK namespace really needs more UK domains.

The owner could decide if they wanted to rebrand to .uk or keep .co.uk as it is in a time scale that suits them.

There would not be 2 sales form 1 domain as some domainers would want but that would reduce the security problems that we would otherwise face under the current proposal.

Now maybe you would answer my question about "Nominet's motives?"

Or add something to the .uk debate?

You are batting for the introduction of the.uk.
You seem to be saying yes I want .uk but on my terms.
That to me is yes to .uk
A yes is a yes.
and now you want info.uk albeit in a controlled manner,( like me.uk and org.uk) where has that sprung from ?

 

[Stephen]

Rethink?

Rethink

Can you please expand and provide some logic, point or argument to rethink my position?

For the record I do rethink my position every time I get more information on the subject, rather than sticking to a dire hard / never will change position.

I have tried very hard to get views from Acorn members on .uk but it always seems to stray into other matters!

 

[websaway]

Can you please expand and provide some logic, point or argument to rethink my position?

For the record I do rethink my position every time I get more information on the subject, rather than sticking to a dire hard / never will change position.

I have tried very hard to get views from Acorn members on .uk but it always seems to stray into other matters!

Sorry I was rethinking my response.


I know you are trying hard but it's a little like making peace in the middle East.
When you have so many sides, so many interests, so many reasons for some to not have peace it's a thankless uphill struggle.

.uk should not be introduced.
The reasons are that no matter how you approach it , even if they just literally swapped co.uk for .uk , which is not likely, the co.uk credibility will be massively undermined. People have worked for years building businesses, buying co.uk domains and creating confidence in the co.uk structure.
Any method of introducing .uk with current registration dates will open a can of worms relating to issues of trademarks and branding rights. Now that may benefit a load of people but it will be a massive disincentive to investing in the uk namespace.
The only way forward is to say no to .uk , not try to find a solution that doesn't exist.

 

[Stephen]

You are batting for the introduction of the.uk.
You seem to be saying yes I want .uk but on my terms.
That to me is yes to .uk
A yes is a yes.
and now you want info.uk albeit in a controlled manner,( like me.uk and org.uk) where has that sprung from ?

I have always wanted .uk and think it would be useful but as I respect other views on .uk, I will do my best to bring those views to the attention of a wider audience. Today on my site www.YourUk.org.uk have linked the Alex Bligh feedback, even though it is not coming to the same conclusion as me;

Alex Bligh a founder and non-exec director of Nominet for 11 years, his blog where he shares his feedback form on the .uk proposal, a very articulate, stimulating and interesting read.

plus in my press release and website I promote the reading of;

Splash Web a performance marketing company for small and medium size enterprises informative view of the second level UK proposal. They are a Nominet member.

My ideas about .info.uk and .net.uk were in my V1 feedback which has been public but the case would have to be proven for there need. I have not advocated the use of .com.uk that Nominet have reserved for as yet undefined purposes, as it would be confusing and against the existing .co.uk.

People can pick any of the points I make and add others and come to a different conclusion, I have repeatedly asked for points on why no .uk at all or arguments against my specific proposal. Just because I have not received any I know it does have flaws and its not a perfect solution but I believe it is the best on offer.

I would rather it was up to a wider range of stakeholders than 10 Director's at Nominet to decide the direction of the UK namespace and whether we get .uk as proposed, but we have to act as best we can that they here all views.

 

[Stephen]

alternative solution

Sorry I was rethinking my response.

I know you are trying hard but it's a little like making peace in the middle East.
When you have so many sides, so many interests, so many reasons for some to not have peace it's a thankless uphill struggle.

.uk should not be introduced.
The reasons are that no matter how you approach it , even if they just literally swapped co.uk for .uk , which is not likely, the co.uk credibility will be massively undermined. People have worked for years building businesses, buying co.uk domains and creating confidence in the co.uk structure.
Any method of introducing .uk with current registration dates will open a can of worms relating to issues of trademarks and branding rights. Now that may benefit a load of people but it will be a massive disincentive to investing in the uk namespace.
The only way forward is to say no to .uk , not try to find a solution that doesn't exist.

I'm advocating that .co.uk and .uk are owned by the same registrant and can never be split and that it is provided for free, as no real cost to Nominet to pass on.

They can effectively use both names to resolve to one site, (effectively a registry 301 ) so no need to rebrand. But can do if it suits, so any benefits real or imagined of .uk can be enjoyed.

I liken it to people to thinking that www.google.co.uk and google.co.uk will both resolve to the same website.

As stated by Monkey and Edwin in another thread they believe that if .uk is not introduced it will hang over the UK namespace forever (not the best reason to implement .uk but it is reason) and create uncertainty and problems for the UK namespace.

I do agree that opening up the .uk domain via oldest registration is fraught with problems. My alternative solution does not share those same problems.

 

[websaway]

I'm advocating that .co.uk and .uk are owned by the same registrant and can never be split and that it is provided for free, as no real cost to Nominet to pass on.

They can effectively use both names to resolve to one site, (effectively a registry 301 ) so no need to rebrand. But can do if it suits, so any benefits real or imagined of .uk can be enjoyed.

I liken it to people to thinking that www.google.co.uk and google.co.uk will both resolve to the same website.

As stated by Monkey and Edwin in another thread they believe that if .uk is not introduced it will hang over the UK namespace forever (not the best reason to implement .uk but it is reason) and create uncertainty and problems for the UK namespace.

I do agree that opening up the .uk domain via oldest registration is fraught with problems. My alternative solution does not share those same problems.

That is not going to happen and my point is that you are losing the NO to .uk argument by trying to compromise on it's introduction by making proposals that are not going to be acceptable to Nominet.
I can't see any winners from your proposals, everybody loses all round from where we are now, and Nominet certainly lose from where they want to be.

 

[Stephen]

Nominet may see it differently

That is not going to happen and my point is that you are losing the NO to .uk argument by trying to compromise on it's introduction by making proposals that are not going to be acceptable to Nominet.
I can't see any winners from your proposals, everybody loses all round from where we are now, and Nominet certainly lose from where they want to be.

I do accept "Nominet certainly lose from where they want to be"

but it is only because they currently have a certain mind set not because it is not good for the UK namespace.

But as I said anybody is welcome to use any of the arguments I have put together and put their case of no .uk.

I'm also providing a lot of time (and money) to publish the "no to .uk" case, see new press release on Alex Bligh feedback which states about 20 times "no to .uk".

But I still believe 100% linking has many winners, no losers but accept Nominet may see it differently. I do not view is a compromise and accept that consumers and existing registrants may want to leave things as they are, I would just rather somebody asked them.

 

[websaway]

I do accept "Nominet certainly lose from where they want to be"

but it is only because they currently have a certain mind set not because it is not good for the UK namespace.

But as I said anybody is welcome to use any of the arguments I have put together and put their case of no .uk.

I'm also providing a lot of time (and money) to publish the "no to .uk" case, see new press release on Alex Bligh feedback which states about 20 times "no to .uk".

But I still believe 100% linking has many winners, no losers but accept Nominet may see it differently. I do not view is a compromise and accept that consumers and existing registrants may want to leave things as they are, I would just rather somebody asked them.

I'm struggling to see ANY winners from where we are now in your 100% linking,
leaving lawyers aside.

 

[Stephen]

involve lawyers?

I'm struggling to see ANY winners from where we are now in your 100% linking,
leaving lawyers aside.

Every .co.uk owner would own the rights to use the equivalent domain with .uk for free, forever (not in an opt in scheme but all domains)

Every owner could decide to use .uk when and if it suited them

No traffic or emails lost due to registry redirect of .uk and .co.uk

No security issues between .co.uk and .uk

agreatplacetobe.org.uk would be able to show how .org.uk are still relevant

No great cloud of when / how is .uk going to be introduced ?

If .uk did get introduced benefiting Nominet financially the UK domaining community would be wondering when is .com.uk coming etc?

I fail to see how this would involve lawyers?

 

[GreyWing]

I'm struggling to see ANY winners from where we are now in your 100% linking, leaving lawyers aside.

It's not about winners though, it is about "no losers" whilst achieving Nominet's published goal of going to the second level. There are zero losers to what Stephen and I have published as a solution in the past. As Alex rightly says in his piece, the other issues should be split from .uk. Such as the price and security etc, these are totally other issues from .uk and should be treated differently. But if you took just the second level issue on its own, the pairing option is the non-destructive option that fulfills the goals set out by Nominet.

You are right in that there is a risk that Nominet could spin a pro pairing option as a pro .uk option. It's a tricky one to be honest but Nominet's only argument that has a tiny bit of validity is that .uk is more attractive than .co.uk. So it has to be tackled and the pairing option does it.

It is a tricky one to balance I do grant you that, clarity of a outright no or pragmatism of a least worst option for yes.

 

[websaway]

Every .co.uk owner would own the rights to use the equivalent domain with .uk for free, forever (not in an opt in scheme but all domains)

Every owner could decide to use .uk when and if it suited them

No traffic or emails lost due to registry redirect of .uk and .co.uk

No security issues between .co.uk and .uk

agreatplacetobe.org.uk would be able to show how .org.uk are still relevant

No great cloud of when / how is .uk going to be introduced ?

If .uk did get introduced benefiting Nominet financially the UK domaining community would be wondering when is .com.uk coming etc?

I fail to see how this would involve lawyers?

I don't think you read my post properly.
Who would be the winners from where we are now ?

Not winners as an alternative to Nominets proposals.

Why own the rights to something that does not exist, how could emails get lost if there is no .uk same applies to security.
Why does anyone win by having a choice of using .uk or co.uk it's confusing and costly, hardly a win situation.

Lawyers...... the .uk would have a registration date and all claims of rights to use the name would take that registration date into consideration, not the original date of the co.uk registration.

The uncertainty of uk being introduced is really your only creditable argument.

 

[websaway]

It's not about winners though, it is about "no losers" whilst achieving Nominet's published goal of going to the second level. There are zero losers to what Stephen and I have published as a solution in the past. As Alex rightly says in his piece, the other issues should be split from .uk. Such as the price and security etc, these are totally other issues from .uk and should be treated differently. But if you took just the second level issue on its own, the pairing option is the non-destructive option that fulfills the goals set out by Nominet.

You are right in that there is a risk that Nominet could spin a pro pairing option as a pro .uk option. It's a tricky one to be honest but Nominet's only argument that has a tiny bit of validity is that .uk is more attractive than .co.uk. So it has to be tackled and the pairing option does it.

It is a tricky one to balance I do grant you that, clarity of a outright no or pragmatism of a least worst option for yes.

It's not tricky for me. ( I would love .uk if it had been introduced at outset ) It can't be done without huge financial cost to businesses and brands.
For whatever reasons, you have gone in a particular direction that will not bother Nominet, not interest the public, and only do damage to the NO TO .UK argument.
I think you've gone off the rails.

 

[Stephen]

The winners

I don't think you read my post properly.
Who would be the winners from where we are now ?

Not winners as an alternative to Nominets proposals.

Why own the rights to something that does not exist, how could emails get lost if there is no .uk same applies to security.
Why does anyone win by having a choice of using .uk or co.uk it's confusing and costly, hardly a win situation.

Lawyers...... the .uk would have a registration date and all claims of rights to use the name would take that registration date into consideration, not the original date of the co.uk registration.

The uncertainty of uk being introduced is really your only creditable argument.

The domain would work for both .co.uk and .uk as they would be interchangeable, so every current .co.uk owner would be a winner. (93% of registry with no costly and divisive opt in to manage)

Winners would be those that wanted to use a .uk domain name, now or in the future, they would be the real winners.

No cost to my proposal, just a few lines of code at the registry.

No confusion as .co.uk and .uk would be interchangeable and easy to understand and communicate.

Although as you have stated it would take out the uncertainty out of future .uk proposals, not a great one but add for completeness.

If .uk is introduced for no money to Nominet, it would also provide more trust that Nominet are not going to continue to go down the road of extracting more monies from existing registrants.

Nominet would probably even get more revenue than now, as it will be seen as a stable namespace and it would reduce the decline rate at least.