Subject-specific thread: Fairest .uk release mechanism?

[Sound]

i agree with this. I think the thread shows that there isn't a fair way of introducting direct.uk. Nominet set out their stall many years ago and its impossible to unpick the situation without causing distress and financial hardship to many innocent people and organisations.

+1

 

[Stephen]

Gosh - how will it end?

I appreciate this isn't an easy thing to judge... but any type of organisation that has a legitimate claim to saying they need the domain as people being able to find their site is clearly in the publics general interest. Obviously stuff like Scouts and Gosh.org.uk would be able to pass that barrier clearly, under any reasonable way you looked at it.

I would even extend this to commercial, for profit sites that potentially lost their .uk equivalents. I've not looked at their domains, reg dates or charity/commercial status so purely random examples, but I would be looking to give .uk domains to things like landmark hotels, Maddame Tussauds, london bridge, o2 arena, football stadiums, etc etc - things which undeniably do a lot for UK tourism and/or are used a lot by the UK general public.

Well if we launch .uk then either we need to give Gosh.uk to Great Ormond St Hospital, or we give it to an Essex marketing company consisting of 2 staff members.

We're going to create a load of type ins and with the nature of this some of them are clearly going to be wrong. I would suggest that its massively in the public interest to have 3 people who were looking for the marketing company, end up on the hospital site. Given that the alternative is to have 20,000 people looking for the hospital, ending up on the marketing site.

Gosh for Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity, currently owns Gosh.org.uk reg in 1998, a year after the .co.uk was registered in 1997.

So under oldest registration date, the .org.uk would not get the domain?

If some new rules where added to allow Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity to own and gosh.uk as it was in the public interest, as suggested.

I doubt if Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity would use the gosh.uk as the domain "would not say charity/non-commercial" and at the moment they dont even use gosh.org.uk they redirect to Gosh.org
and for their email addresses they use @gosh.nhs.uk
and for their contact website address on their contact page they list it as wwww.gosh.nhs.uk

If you check Whois at Nominet for gosh.nhs.uk it is pre 1996 and so predates the .co.uk and so would be entitiled to the .uk under the proposed nominet V2.0 release method?

I do not think that would be fair on the owners of Gosh.co.uk.

Also it would not be fair on Gosh Cosmetics, a global brand,
that may wish to acquire gosh.uk it at some stage, for there UK presence.

 

[Retired_Member42]

You were told how the nhs.uk and whois queries work on a previous thread. I'm not sure why you're still trying to whois nhs.uk sub domains?

 

[Retired_Member38]

Gosh for Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity, currently owns Gosh.org.uk reg in 1998, a year after the .co.uk was registered in 1997.

So under oldest registration date, the .org.uk would not get the domain?

If some new rules where added to allow Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity to own and gosh.uk as it was in the public interest, as suggested.

I doubt if Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity would use the gosh.uk as the domain "would not say charity/non-commercial" and at the moment they dont even use gosh.org.uk they redirect to Gosh.org
and for their email addresses they use @gosh.nhs.uk
and for their contact website address on their contact page they list it as wwww.gosh.nhs.uk

I don't expect them to use it either - but all they need to do is redirect it (like they do with their .org.uk) to ensure anyone who needs to find their website, can easily do so.

If you check Whois at Nominet for gosh.nhs.uk it is pre 1996 and so predates the .co.uk and so would be entitiled to the .uk under the proposed nominet V2.0 release method?

This was explained in another thread - that is a subdomain, probably not relevant and probably not covered under v2.

I do not think that would be fair on the owners of Gosh.co.uk.

Also it would not be fair on Gosh Cosmetics, a global brand,
that may wish to acquire gosh.uk it at some stage, for there UK presence.

Clearly it won't be 'fair' for one (or more) group - there are multiple interested parties, and only one gosh.uk.

I just think if you use any sort of 'benefit to the general public' factors in the selection process, there is only one deserving recipient here.

 

[Stephen]

Clarification about resolving .nhs.uk domains

You were told how the nhs.uk and whois queries work on a previous thread. I'm not sure why you're still trying to whois nhs.uk sub domains?

Yes thanks it has been pointed out for those that missed it,
it was pointed out by Rob F & Redemption on another thread when I raised .nhs.uk as a 3rd level contender,
that if you put anything.nhs,uk it provides a whois record (but hopefully the Nominet detail on 1st July - will explain more)
e.g. eedvgggd76.nhs.uk was allegedly a pre 1996 domain?

However this actual 3rd level domain www.gosh.nhs.uk is in use and resolves to a real website,
that is the difference here, that I was trying to demonstrate.

I hope that clarifies things.

 

[Edwin]

Yes thanks it has been pointed out for those that missed it,
it was pointed out by Rob F & Redemption on another thread when I raised .nhs.uk as a 3rd level contender,
that if you put anything.nhs,uk it provides a whois record (but hopefully the Nominet detail on 1st July - will explain more)
e.g. eedvgggd76.nhs.uk was allegedly a pre 1996 domain?

However this actual 3rd level domain www.gosh.nhs.uk is in use and resolves to a real website,
that is the difference here, that I was trying to demonstrate.

I hope that clarifies things.

No, not at all.

It's irrelevant if there's a site on there or not, you'll have no idea when the subdomain was set up. So there's no "precedence" to .nhs.uk subdomains.

There is only ONE domain names, and that's nhs.uk. Everything else is stuff that the NHS have set up internally for themselves. They can create anything from aardvark.nhs.uk to zoo.nhs.uk and the Whois will show a creation date of "Before Aug-1996" but that's because each Whois lookup is returning the same result: the Whois of "nhs.uk".

Check these 4 real examples of actual NHS sites:
leedsnorthccg.nhs.uk
institute.nhs.uk
procure21plus.nhs.uk
rotherham.nhs.uk

When you Whois the above, you'll see that the record says: "Domain name: nhs.uk" for all 4.

Look at it another way: the NHS have already "won" - they've got NHS.uk and don't have to worry about anyone else's claim to it, regardless of release mechanism.

Beyond that, I don't think we really need to go...

 

[Stephen]

gosh.nhs.uk

No, not at all.

It's irrelevant if there's a site on there or not, you'll have no idea when the subdomain was set up. So there's no "precedence" to .nhs.uk subdomains.

There is only ONE domain names, and that's nhs.uk. Everything else is stuff that the NHS have set up internally for themselves. They can create anything from aardvark.nhs.uk to zoo.nhs.uk and the Whois will show a creation date of "Before Aug-1996" but that's because each Whois lookup is returning the same result: the Whois of "nhs.uk".

Check these 4 real examples of actual NHS sites:
leedsnorthccg.nhs.uk
institute.nhs.uk
procure21plus.nhs.uk
rotherham.nhs.uk

When you Whois the above, you'll see that the record says: "Domain name: nhs.uk" for all 4.

Look at it another way: the NHS have already "won" - they've got NHS.uk and don't have to worry about anyone else's claim to it, regardless of release mechanism.

Beyond that, I don't think we really need to go...

We will hopefully see in the detail on the 1st July that Nominet have dealt correctly with .nhs.uk as a third level Uk domain,
which if Nominet are monitioring Acorn, they should have spotted and thanks to the several people who at Acorn who pointed out the whois anomolies about the .nhs.uk.

Back on gosh.nhs.uk then if they have that domain, why do they need gosh.uk just to redirect, what a waste of a great domain that would be?

 

[Retired_Member38]

Back on gosh.nhs.uk then if they have that domain, why do they need gosh.uk just to redirect, what a waste of a great domain that would be?

If things go like the way a lot here expect them to go (i.e. .UK being the clear winner in the UK name space) then it wouldn't be a 'waste' to give this domain to them to redirect.

You'd be doing the public a favour, by making sure people trying to find out info on where their sick kids were being treated, could find the site they were looking for. Sure it wouldn't be developed, but all the redirected traffic would more than outweigh what anyone else would have done with the domain, imho.

 

[websaway]

You're just being deliberately difficult now I think, but thank you for providing me with another great example url.

Whether GOSH stay on their .org.uk or not is irrelevant - they need to control gosh.uk.

Or would it be better to just send the the parent looking to find out info on the ward their sick kid is in, or the grandparent looking to donate much needed cash to their funding appeal, to a .uk run by the guy who currently owns the .co.uk?

As he's going to win the domain on the 'earliest registrant'.

What bit about org.uk

" The non-commercial domain choice for charities, community groups, public service, professional institutions, not for profit and third sector organisations "

is difficult to understand ?

 

[Retired_Member38]

What bit about org.uk

" The non-commercial domain choice for charities, community groups, public service, professional institutions, not for profit and third sector organisations "

is difficult to understand ?

Its definitely difficult to understand something, when you selectively quote from a paragraph to support a self serving angle

Read the rules in their entirety - they are very clear in that you can use a .org.uk for anything you want. I have already posted an email from Nominet (sent a couple of days ago) saying you can do exactly this. My own legal guy (a real solicitor, not someone unqualified like you or me) also says the rules are perfectly clear from a legal point of view.

 

[Stephen]

Rules!

Its definitely difficult to understand something, when you selectively quote from a paragraph to support a self serving angle

Read the rules in their entirety - they are very clear in that you can use a .org.uk for anything you want. I have already posted an email from Nominet (sent a couple of days ago) saying you can do exactly this. My own legal guy (a real solicitor, not someone unqualified like you or me) also says the rules are perfectly clear from a legal point of view.

Another legal opinion obtained reads:

Although Nominet say it will not take action, use of a registration that does not fall within the intended limits could still involve potential criminal, civil, or regulatory infringements, particularly under the law of misrepresentation.

Sorry cannot share the other bit about how Nominet's rules are poorly drafted in this area.

But as it has often been said on these threads, under Nominet's rules in full,
anybody operating a commercial website on a .org.uk is not breaking the Nominet rules as they stand.

As for as the consumer website visitor, I would expect them to choose an .org.uk expecting it to be
a non-commercial organization and that is what they are looking for.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Come on Stephen, you're really stretching it with that. Yes an .org.uk could end up in trouble for regulatory infringements - just as a .com, .co.uk or .cn could.

How about everyone starts quoting full paragraphs, rather than chopping them up to suit?

 

[websaway]

Its definitely difficult to understand something, when you selectively quote from a paragraph to support a self serving angle

Read the rules in their entirety - they are very clear in that you can use a .org.uk for anything you want. I have already posted an email from Nominet (sent a couple of days ago) saying you can do exactly this. My own legal guy (a real solicitor, not someone unqualified like you or me) also says the rules are perfectly clear from a legal point of view.

You can use a hammer for anything you like but we all recognise it as an implement for knocking nails in.

 

[Stephen]

Come on Stephen, you're really stretching it with that. Yes an .org.uk could end up in trouble for regulatory infringements - just as a .com, .co.uk or .cn could.

How about everyone starts quoting full paragraphs, rather than chopping them up to suit?

I don't think I'm streching it,
it is much easier and more likely for a commerical organization
to use an .org.uk
and represent itself as an independent source
and hence mislead a visitor to the website that it is obtaining impartial
non-profit seeking advise or information,
whereas in actual fact they would probably be receiving biased advise and self-serving information which benifits the website owner.

 

[Retired_Member38]

And a .co.uk can sell fake rolexes. Whats your point exactly?

If you can point to a specific .org.uk masquerading as a charity or a non profit when its not, fair enough - go complain about that site specifically.

Its ridiculous to state "Although Nominet say it will not take action, use of a registration that does not fall within the intended limits could still involve potential criminal, civil, or regulatory infringements, particularly under the law of misrepresentation." on its own - it means literally nothing. Every single domain name and website in existence, also falls under the exact same rules. Yet you're parading it around like it applies to .org.uk only...

 

[Stephen]

And a .co.uk can sell fake rolexes. Whats your point exactly?...

Agree and I hope the police put them in jail.

If you can point to a specific .org.uk masquerading as a charity or a non profit when its not, fair enough - go complain about that site specifically.

I wonder if you can add comment on this, as a consumer typed in "pay day loans .org.uk" to search engine and went to the first listed site samedayloans.org.uk,
when I go into website it states it is a .co.uk and yet the url is still .org.uk which is confusing.

As the .org.uk is a different owner to the legitimate samedayloans.co.uk, have the .org.uk just scrapped the .co.uk site and used it is an affiliate feed?

Its ridiculous to state "Although Nominet say it will not take action, use of a registration that does not fall within the intended limits could still involve potential criminal, civil, or regulatory infringements, particularly under the law of misrepresentation." on its own - it means literally nothing. Every single domain name and website in existence, also falls under the exact same rules. Yet you're parading it around like it applies to .org.uk only...

That what hapens when you get a Barristers opinion!
But it is mainly about Nominet's position.
But the extracted quote, does not say it applies only to .org.uk,
I have just stated that it is more likely in my opinion to work that way.

 

[Retired_Member38]

I wonder if you can add comment on this, as a consumer typed in "pay day loans .org.uk" to search engine and went to the first listed site samedayloans.org.uk,
when I go into website it states it is a .co.uk and yet the url is still .org.uk which is confusing.

As the .org.uk is a different owner to the legitimate samedayloans.co.uk, have the .org.uk just scrapped the .co.uk site and used it is an affiliate feed?

I thought it was pretty obvious, maybe if you took those photoshopped sunglasses off you would see it

samedayloans.org.uk and .co.uk are under the same ownership - see the company info listed in the footer. Along with the same design and content loading on both urls.

If anyone can seriously say they would mistake that site for a charity... then they shouldn't be allowed unsupervised internet access.

 

[Stephen]

I thought it was pretty obvious, maybe if you took those photoshopped sunglasses off you would see it

samedayloans.org.uk and .co.uk are under the same ownership - see the company info listed in the footer. Along with the same design and content loading on both urls.

If anyone can seriously say they would mistake that site for a charity... then they shouldn't be allowed unsupervised internet access.

Look at the Whois for both domains please.

p.s. they are real sunglasses but thanks I should update the picture!

 

[Retired_Member38]

Might just be my laptop but they look so black they appear to be photoshopped

I don't need to look at the whois, both domains are mine.

 

[Retired_Member42]

Nominet / .uk issues aside... NO WAY they're real sunnies?