Report: Get involved or lose your .uk domains

[Stephen]

Motivation

Stephen,

I know your very passionate about this, may I ask, what are you personally, specifically gaining or losing with the advent of .UK?

Put another way: what is your motivation to spend so much time on this - are you owner one of the domains listed on your homepage?

I have tried to deal with the self interest question in my reply to Monkey's post.

I'm not the owner of any domain listed on the front of the report and are not working on there behalf or getting paid by anybody else.

Of my portfolio of UK domains I will gain 95% of the .uk domains and lose some .co.uk but no valuable ones but gain some from .me.uk and .org.uk ownership which would be valuable as .uk.

I will be letting some of my .co.uk drop but that is because I don't think I will ever develop them, EMD and SEO have changed and I don't think they are now saleable for a variety of reasons.

my Motivation: I feel that the current .uk proposal would be bad for the UK namespace and in my nature is to fight for what you feel is right rather than fight for what you may think Nominet will concede to, which I accept would a perfectly sensible thing to do and a lot less time consuming.

As Nominet as the guardian of the UK namespace in my opinion are not doing a good job with .uk as can be seen with the feedback from V1 and the change in direction, I feel that somebody has to present some alternative views and the problems with the current proposal and try to bring the debate to a wider audience than Nominet are currently doing.

 

[Edwin]

in my nature is to fight for what you feel is right rather than fight for what you may think Nominet will concede to, which I accept would a perfectly sensible thing to do and a lot less time consuming.

As well as being "perfectly sensible", it would be a lot more productive too! If you fight for what Nominet might be willing to compromise on, there's a chance - just a chance - of achieving it.

If you fight in the abstract based on a strong sense of "right" (i.e. "for justice") then I can see it's an even more principled stand, and as such both admirable and laudable, but it's also a pointless and wasted effort.

Instead of having the opportunity to affect or at least influence policy, you're choosing the soapbox.

That's fine, as long as you go into the process with your eyes open and realise that it's not going to have any effect - but it's unrealistic to expect others to similarly disconnect from the reality of the situation and back your idealistic plan.

I think that, more than anything, is why you're seeing relatively few comments on your proposal, and why it is unlikely to gain traction.

 

[websaway]

The report is nothing more than self interest, masquerading as concern for others. Look at Stephens business model - its completely destroyed if .uk was launched like v1, with £20 reg fees and having to compete for each individually. Its going to take a massive (but probably not fatal) blow with v2 and having to pay for .uk variants of his domains.

Examples -

Handsandfeet.co.uk - £850
RackingandShelving.co.uk - £850
Shop4rent.co.uk - £850

I'll limit it to 3 but you could go through the portfolios and find hundreds of them. Overpriced low quality domains, where the corresponding .org.uk's aren't even registered at all.

I don't think you can have it both ways - either a domain is worth £850 in .co.uk and you should also own the .org.uk for reg fee, or you know you're over charging and the .co.uk is never worth close to £850 in the first place.

So people are operating this business model of stocking very low quality domains and holding them for however many years it takes for someone to come along, fail to understand the value of them, and buy.

If v2 goes ahead as planned Stephen now needs to put his money where his mouth is. You can't realistically refuse to pay £10 or whatever to pick up handsandfeet.uk, and continue the charade of the .co.uk being worth £850. So anyone holding a portfolio like this now has to pick and choose, and let a lot of them drop. I think realistically they are going to lose more than they gain if they double their costs and buy all these low value domains in .uk too, and double pay until a buyer comes along. As the buyer is going to expect them both, but not to pay double the £850.

I'm not going to use anyone else an example but there are other portfolio owners admitting they're going to dump a section of their holdings - its the only way they can realistically go.

So the financial blow to portfolio owners who went with the business model of bulk and not very good, is going to be massive.

The only way they can survive this is to get .uk cancelled completely (no chance of happening) or to have the domains handed out in pairs at zero cost (pie in the sky hope really, but slightly better than complete cancellation). Anything else which involves a new release and having to pay for the domains, is an absolute disaster business wise.

Anyway the above is obviously just my opinion of what is going on. Since Stephen is publishing his report with no disclosure of self interest (and using at least one of my domains as an example), I don't feel that its unreasonable to post publicly what I think is going on, or why.

I never find myself disagreeing with your posts because I never take them too seriously, in fact your posts often open up threads to make them more interesting.

I think you are thoughtlessly inaccurate on this occasion though and are overlooking some basics.
If someone is deluded for some reason regarding the value of a domain ( in your opinion ) which they own, then £10 to secure the .uk is not going to bother them, it won't alter their view of the domain value, and of course they would not expect to double the price of a sale for the co.uk & .uk, they would most likely want at most to recoup the £10 outlay for the .uk registration.
If on the other hand someone realises a domain has no value then they can simply let it drop, and that is not a loss but a gain because it was a liability.

I do think people have to bite the bullet anyway and let certain names drop. The problem is that they don't easily know which ones have value and which ones are a liability.
It doesn't help either when people let names drop and others, because of their naivety, register them.

Finally you talk about self interest.
There is not a person involved in this whole debacle that has not got self interest at heart and that includes the board at Nominet.

 

[Edwin]

If someone is deluded for some reason regarding the value of a domain ( in your opinion ) which they own, then £10 to secure the .uk is not going to bother them, it won't alter their view of the domain value, and of course they would not expect to double the price of a sale for the co.uk & .uk, they would most likely want at most to recoup the £10 outlay for the .uk registration.

That's mathematically incorrect.

For example, if somebody sells 2% of their portfolio a year (and ignoring the costs to replenish it, which could be substantial) that means that every domain sold has to pay for 50 .co.uk domain renewals (i.e. needs to bring in at least £150+VAT/sale) just to break even on the renewal costs for the unsold inventory.

With .uk in the picture at 2x the price of .co.uk, every pair of domains sold (assuming the same 2% sell-through rate) has to pay for the equivalent of 150 .co.uk domain renewals (i.e. needs to bring in £450+VAT/sale for the pair) or you're left facing a loss on renewals.

So actually the statement about the need for a "doubling" of the sale price is conservative, if anything.

 

[websaway]

That's mathematically incorrect.

For example, if somebody sells 2% of their portfolio a year (and ignoring the costs to replenish it, which could be substantial) that means that every domain sold has to pay for 50 .co.uk domain renewals (i.e. needs to bring in at least £150+VAT/sale) just to break even on the renewal costs for the unsold inventory.

With .uk in the picture at 2x the price of .co.uk, every pair of domains sold (assuming the same 2% sell-through rate) has to pay for the equivalent of 150 .co.uk domain renewals (i.e. needs to bring in £450+VAT/sale for the pair) or you're left facing a loss on renewals.

So actually the statement about the need for a "doubling" of the sale price is conservative, if anything.

What if they only own one domain ?
It's the principle I was referring to not the exact mathematics of a large portfolio owner.
And surely in your scenario your figures are irrelevant if the original 2% is baseless.

 

[Edwin]

What if they only own one domain ?
It's the principle I was referring to not the exact mathematics of a large portfolio owner.
And surely in your scenario your figures are irrelevant if the original 2% is baseless.

Sorry, I'm still lost.

The percentages are irrelevant. The math is unaffected, whether it's 2% a year that sells or 10%. You still have to cover the tripling in renewal fees for ALL the remaining domains if you plan to hold .co.uk and .uk pairs where once you just had the .co.uk.

So either:
A) The pairs have to sell much more easily than .co.uk has been doing (i.e. the % of the portfolio that sells in a given year has to shoot up)
and/or
B) The pairs have to sell on average for much higher prices than .co.uk has been doing

Failing both A) and B), any business that relies on domain sales is pretty much doomed.

 

[websaway]

Sorry, I'm still lost.

The percentages are irrelevant. The math is unaffected, whether it's 2% a year that sells or 10%. You still have to cover the tripling in renewal fees for ALL the remaining domains if you plan to hold .co.uk and .uk pairs where once you just had the .co.uk.

So either:
A) The pairs have to sell much more easily than .co.uk has been doing (i.e. the % of the portfolio that sells in a given year has to shoot up)
and/or
B) The pairs have to sell on average for much higher prices than .co.uk has been doing

Failing both A) and B), any business that relies on domain sales is pretty much doomed.

In that case surely survival will depend on ability to gain sales.
Ability to retain quality names and dispose of worthless names and be able to distinguish between the two.

The damage to UK portfolio's has already been done, the uncertainty in the extension is acute and has caused companies to postpone going forward on development. Sales have reduced and resulted in a lack of liquidity in the marketplace. People are busy positioning themselves for whatever the outcome of the consultation, and that is understandable.
The introduction tomorrow of .uk would probably be a welcome release for some from the uncertainty that is stagnating the co.uk market and everyone could bite their own bullet and get on with their business.
The ensuing logistics of course of who owns what and who is entitled to what and who can win what legally because of the registration dates of the new .uk domains should keep everyone busy for years to come.

 

[Nigel]

Hi Stephen

Read thro' your report. Presentation Good - Worthwhile report with some very good information and interesting examples. Thought it was a little bit too lengthy - think non domainers might start flagging as they read thro' all the comments that nominet refused to publish on their blog.

I think nominet's plans can be defeated but only by contacting several thousand of the many .co.uk domain owners that will lose out to an inferior extension. But that would be an enormous job - compiling a list - and find a means of contacting them without being accused of spamming. It's something nominet should be doing (as they are, in my opinion, in a contractural relationship with existing owners) but its obvious that they don't want losing .co.uk domain owners finding out about this before the consultation ends.

 

[GreyWing]

The damage to UK portfolio's has already been done, the uncertainty in the extension is acute and has caused companies to postpone going forward on development. Sales have reduced and resulted in a lack of liquidity in the marketplace. People are busy positioning themselves for whatever the outcome of the consultation, and that is understandable.
The introduction tomorrow of .uk would probably be a welcome release for some from the uncertainty that is stagnating the co.uk market and everyone could bite their own bullet and get on with their business.
The ensuing logistics of course of who owns what and who is entitled to what and who can win what legally because of the registration dates of the new .uk domains should keep everyone busy for years to come.

Very true, but also the fact that years of legal challenges will stagnate the .uk and .co.uk for another year or so. I think the damage has already been done too, a little bit of changes from Google and other issues (deciding to concentrate on a couple of names) and this was the final nail in the coffin for us. So a mixture of everything has led to us selling / dropping 95% of the names we once held.

We would certainly be going to court, not the DRS to challenge anyone on the couple we would lose. We don't think we could force Nominet into giving us .uk but we would certainly be able to stop someone using .uk There are a number of larger companies that will be doing the same from the sounds of it. Some will challenge it in uk courts and others in US courts. So it will be a big big mess for years to come.

I still say that Nominet the company has a chance of becoming insolvent after it has gone through all the court processes.

 

[Stephen]

enormous job ?

Hi Stephen

Read thro' your report. Presentation Good - Worthwhile report with some very good information and interesting examples. Thought it was a little bit too lengthy - think non domainers might start flagging as they read thro' all the comments that nominet refused to publish on their blog.

I think nominet's plans can be defeated but only by contacting several thousand of the many .co.uk domain owners that will lose out to an inferior extension. But that would be an enormous job - compiling a list - and find a means of contacting them without being accused of spamming. It's something nominet should be doing (as they are, in my opinion, in a contractural relationship with existing owners) but its obvious that they don't want losing .co.uk domain owners finding out about this before the consultation ends.

Agree about the length and hopefully will get some answers, so it can be cut down considerably.

Received email this morning from Nominet:

I have only just returned from annual leave, which is why there has been a delay in my responding to your blog comments. I plan to do so shortly.

Just sent my 100th email sending Report out to people it directly effects, it is a slow tedious job!

After a few edits and changes to the Report I hope to get a wider distribution to non domainers via a range of methods.

Looking at buying in email lists but have to ensure it is not spam that I'm sending them!

 

[Nigel]

Agree about the length and hopefully will get some answers, so it can be cut down considerably.

Received email this morning from Nominet:

Just sent my 100th email sending Report out to people it directly effects, it is a slow tedious job!

After a few edits and changes to the Report I hope to get a wider distribution to non domainers via a range of methods.

Looking at buying in email lists but have to ensure it is not spam that I'm sending them!

When you've finished your report it might be worth sending to the Federation of Small Businesses and asking them what steps they are taking to protect the thousands of fsb members who will currently be trading from a .co.uk domain.

http://www.fsb.org.uk/contacts

 

[Nigel]

Great list of trade bodies and organisations on these sites. A lot of .co.uk domain owners must be represented by all the trade bodies listed:

https://www.ukecc-services.net/ukpbata.cfm

http://www.britishservices.co.uk/associations.htm

 

[Stephen]

Great list of trade bodies and organisations on these sites. A lot of .co.uk domain owners must be represented by all the trade bodies listed:

https://www.ukecc-services.net/ukpbata.cfm

http://www.britishservices.co.uk/associations.htm

Thanks that is very helpful indeed.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

my Motivation: I feel that the current .uk proposal would be bad for the UK namespace and in my nature is to fight for what you feel is right rather than fight for what you may think Nominet will concede to, which I accept would a perfectly sensible thing to do and a lot less time consuming.

Stephen, I agree with that statement absolutely. Also, I do not think .uk is a done deal - they still have a lot more explaining to do about the basis for declaring that the outcome of consultation v1 (the failed consultation) was that stakeholders supported the idea. You and both know that once the real data is made transparent, not just the 'summarised' data, yourself, Edwin and others will see other patterns in the consultation responses that their marketing consultants wouldn't have thought about.

The spotlight is turning on the characters proposing these ideas, as Dickie conceded at the AGM, he and Thomas fed into proposals that they were conflicted out of voting on. They are not allowed to do that, in my view, and in many organisations they would be prevented from doing so. The fact that they did so, without declaring their own conflict to members, a legal requirement, is a cause for concern.

Great document, thank you .. and pleased that you seem undetered by the drivel.

 

[Stephen]

Trimmed 6 pages from Report

... Also, I do not think .uk is a done deal - they still have a lot more explaining to do about the basis for declaring that the outcome of consultation v1 (the failed consultation) was that stakeholders supported the idea. ...

Thanks and agree it is not a done deal for .uk to be introduced at all or in the form Nominet are proposing if it does come.

I have adjusted Report by removing the Blog comment postings, now I have told there will be response and replaced by a simpler list of 2 pages of questions not yet answered by Nominet.

This removes 6 pages and hopefully makes the document a bit easier to get through.

Now working on the "PRESS RELEASE" to get it some exposure,

Another Acorn member has introduced me to a PR company PRweb.com which has a UK division that will distribute it.

 

[GreyWing]

Another Acorn member has introduced me to a PR company PRweb.com which has a UK division that will distribute it.

Do you want to use donate.org.uk mate to raise a bit of funding for this? I'm happy to chip in a bit. I think PRweb is pretty good from memory.

Cheers
GW

 

[Stephen]

costs

Do you want to use donate.org.uk mate to raise a bit of funding for this? I'm happy to chip in a bit. I think PRweb is pretty good from memory.

Cheers
GW

Thanks very much for the offers they are much appreciated but the PR cost is a lot less than I budgeted for.

But still obtaining quotes on adverts in the media if the press don't take up the story and I might need some assistance with that as some of the costs are a bit scary,
if anybody has any media buyer contacts that might be able to get some favourable rates that would be very welcome.

 

[Stephen]

Press release

Any comments on my intended press release welcome;

Big flaws in the new .uk domain extension exposed

Nominet the UK domain registrar authority are trying to introduce a new domain name extension .uk (e.g. ibm.uk).
The details of the proposal have not been widely publicised, yet the UK domaining community are convinced it will be implemented as proposed.

What has not been publicized or debated is the negative aspects
that will be created when .uk gets introduced such as:

An “opt in” scheme; result will be the Owners of a Million or more .co.uk domains will not apply for new .uk, as they will not know about it?​

“Oldest registration gets first chance”; so up to 250,000 .co.uk domain holders will not be able to obtain the equivalent .uk under the current proposal including: Hotmail.co.uk Dreams.co.uk Windows.co.uk Food.co.uk Sky.co.uk ee.co.uk audible.co.uk freelancer.co.uk independent.co.uk gap.co.uk instyle.co.uk Art.co.uk DayNurseries.co.uk Unwins.co.uk ITS.co.uk Adams.co.uk Bes.co.uk FlowersDirect.co.uk Custard.co.uk Build.co.uk TopMail.co.uk TheBelfry.co.uk Benedict.co.uk Smiles.co.uk Tamba.co.uk Pims.co.uk Planet.co.uk Prospects.co.uk PopupStands.co.uk DestinationFlorida.co.uk PaydayLoans.co.uk oba.co.uk RadioCity.co.uk Alli.co.uk to name but a few.​

New .uk domain will cost over 100% more than .co.uk and you will still have to keep paying for the .co.uk renewals.

More security with .uk: devaluing confidence in .co.uk and .org.uk websites.

Security nightmare with different owners of .co.uk and .uk​

Details of these flaws about .uk can be found in a report “Get involved or lose your .uk domains” which can be downloaded at www.YourUk.org.uk

Also another good perspective on .uk can be found at www.splashweb.co.uk/directuk

Please contact me, Stephen Wilde with any questions on this Press Release at [email protected].

THE END

 

[Stephen]

Fsb

When you've finished your report it might be worth sending to the Federation of Small Businesses and asking them what steps they are taking to protect the thousands of fsb members who will currently be trading from a .co.uk domain.

http://www.fsb.org.uk/contacts

Thanks as have trimmed report down, I have sent a copy to FSB

If anybody is a member of that organization, would they please contact them and see if they can establish what there stance is regarding the current .uk proposal and post their response?

Also as an .org.uk website that owns the pre nom .co.uk and would get the .uk, do they intend to move to .uk if it gets introduced?

 

[Edwin]

Nominet the UK domain registrar authority are trying to introduce a new domain name extension .uk (e.g. ibm.uk).
The details of the proposal have not been widely publicised, yet the UK domaining community are convinced it will be implemented as proposed.

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)

What has not been publicized or debated is the negative aspects
that will be created when .uk gets introduced such as:

An “opt in” scheme; result will be the Owners of a Million or more .co.uk domains will not apply for new .uk, as they will not know about it?

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.

“Oldest registration gets first chance”; so up to 250,000 .co.uk domain holders will not be able to obtain the equivalent .uk under the current proposal including: Hotmail.co.uk Dreams.co.uk Windows.co.uk Food.co.uk Sky.co.uk ee.co.uk audible.co.uk freelancer.co.uk independent.co.uk gap.co.uk instyle.co.uk Art.co.uk DayNurseries.co.uk Unwins.co.uk ITS.co.uk Adams.co.uk Bes.co.uk FlowersDirect.co.uk Custard.co.uk Build.co.uk TopMail.co.uk TheBelfry.co.uk Benedict.co.uk Smiles.co.uk Tamba.co.uk Pims.co.uk Planet.co.uk Prospects.co.uk PopupStands.co.uk DestinationFlorida.co.uk PaydayLoans.co.uk oba.co.uk RadioCity.co.uk Alli.co.uk to name but a few.

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"

New .uk domain will cost over 100% more than .co.uk and you will still have to keep paying for the .co.uk renewals.

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.

More security with .uk: devaluing confidence in .co.uk and .org.uk websites.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. How does devaluing confidence provide more security?

Security nightmare with different owners of .co.uk and .uk

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."