Subject-specific thread: Fairest .uk release mechanism?

[Stephen]

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.

Okay then, sorry to have used this example.

I will blank out posts referring to them, if you want.

It was not by design it was really the first domain listed.

I was trying to point out with the different ownership in the .org.uk and .co.uk that if it was possibly an "affiliate scam" on the .co.uk owner (see famous Tesco case)
then the .org.uk would be misleading the public to get traffic
and working incorrectly under the affiliate arrangment by passing off the .co.uk product as their own, so claiming affilate income incorrectly.

Also suggest you get some SEO advise about duplicate content on multiple url's as eventually it will hurt both sites, I think.

 

[Edwin]

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.

Correct. And it's Nominet's rules we should be concerned about. Everything else is coulda woulda shoulda territory.

 

[Stephen]

Correct. And it's Nominet's rules we should be concerned about. Everything else is coulda woulda shoulda territory.

There is also should Nominet change or revise their Rules about tld's with the introduction of .uk?

 

[Edwin]

There is also should Nominet change or revise their Rules about tld's with the introduction of .uk?

Even if they do (and I would be genuinely amazed if they did - they have enough changes to worry about, without one more) they can't go back and impose a new rule retroactively for 17 years' worth of domain registrations.

 

[Stephen]

Even if they do (and I would be genuinely amazed if they did - they have enough changes to worry about, without one more) they can't go back and impose a new rule retroactively for 17 years' worth of domain registrations.

I'm sure Nominet would not want to change the tld rules and would not themselves instigate such actions.

But Yes they can change the tld rules and maybe they might be forced to, I'm tyrying to say this not all just about existing Nominet rules.

Nominet have to operate within other laws that currently exisit.

We will have to wait and see what the .uk proposal looks like in full before this is expanded on.

 

[websaway]

Just because something doesn't break a rule does not mean it's best or most advisable practice.
Common sense has to be applied.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Okay then, sorry to have used this example.

I will blank out posts referring to them, if you want.

It was not by design it was really the first domain listed.

I was trying to point out with the different ownership in the .org.uk and .co.uk that if it was possibly an "affiliate scam" on the .co.uk owner (see famous Tesco case)
then the .org.uk would be misleading the public to get traffic
and working incorrectly under the affiliate arrangment by passing off the .co.uk product as their own, so claiming affilate income incorrectly.

Also suggest you get some SEO advise about duplicate content on multiple url's as eventually it will hurt both sites, I think.

Its no problem using mine as an example... the company info is listed in the footers so its hardy a secret.

The passing off thing is a red herring - it works in any other direction where someone has copied someone else's content. Its unfair and inaccurate to even mention it as a .org.uk problem.

No duplicate content issues - Google have been blocked from indexing the .co.uk via robots.txt

 

[Stephen]

Even if they do (and I would be genuinely amazed if they did - they have enough changes to worry about, without one more) they can't go back and impose a new rule retroactively for 17 years' worth of domain registrations.

I just thought in version 1 on .uk many said that Nominet had changed the 16 years of rules on .co.uk by introducing .uk to replace it!

But I know, sorry I should focus on .uk Version 2.0.

 

[viceroy]

Agree and I hope the police put them in jail.



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?



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.

You do realise that there's a relationship here?

 

[Stephen]

No

You do realise that there's a relationship here?

No not until somebody they said they owned both, I did not know that was the case, or who owned it.

I did not expect to find this type of issue, I was going to look for an .org.uk that was owned by a commerial organization
and misrepresenting itself as a impartial non-commercial organization, however what I did find on the first site
I thought was worth posting.

I just went to whois and found 2 different owners
with the .co.uk owner in UK
the different .org.uk owner residing in Portugal
as content same for both tld's but .org.uk did not redirect as you would normally expect as the site says it is .co.uk
there was affiliate scheme on .co.uk
it looked like it might be "affiliate scam by the .org.uk owner" trying to get
commission with same name, different tld and same content scrapped website.
As others know industry, I simply asked if my guess was true.