Subject-specific thread: NO to direct.uk

[Edwin]

This thread is ONLY for discussing "No to direct.uk" scenarios.

Could we perhaps use this thread going forward to try and find productive ways to stop direct.uk going ahead?

Please use the thread linked below to discuss the fairest release mechanism, if it were to go ahead:
http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/uk-do...ific-thread-fairest-uk-release-mechanism.html

 

[Edwin]

Here are some of the bullets copied from my website as "Cons" to the concept of .uk, edited for V2...

• The system ain't broke - don't fix it!
• The current system is effective and well understood
• No technical reasons to change the current structure
• Multiple organisations with the same name coexist at the same level (.co.uk, .org.uk, .gov.uk, .plc.uk, .ltd.uk, .ac.uk etc.) - no extension is superior to the other
• Higher annual renewal fees (2 domains rather than 1)
• Increase in phishing attacks, and higher probability of success because of confusion
• Potential privacy breaches, loss of trade secrets etc. because of emails gone astray
• Technical setup costs for running two domains and redirecting emails and traffic
• Loss of confidence in existing UK namespace as .uk takes off
• Push from all organisations at the third level to be present at the second level i.e. .org.uk organisations will also want to be at the .UK level, as will schools, etc. - a big mess
• All or nothing decision - no new domain extensions (e.g. .com.uk or .shop.uk) can be launched in future to meet new market demands

Please add your own "cons" below, in as much detail as you can (stats and data to back them up would be great of course, but not necessary!)

 

[markb]

• (.co.uk, .org.uk, .gov.uk, .plc.uk, .ltd.uk, .ac.uk etc.) - no extension is superior to the other

I would argue against this statement as I believe that the .co.uk is superior to some of the other extensions. Nominet champion the .co.uk extensions as the place to be for businesses.

I think if nominet want to go ahead with the direct .uk extension, they should decide what the extension should be used for. If a business can use the .uk extension for a commerical website, then .co.uk owners should have first refusal. If there is the possibility that a .uk could go to the owner of another extension other than the .co.uk , then nominet shouldn't allow the .uk to be used for commercial purposes, as this is going to cause conflict and confusion.

So if an org.uk owner gets the .uk version of their domain, they should not be allowed to create a commercial website, or sell the domain on to someone else who will go on to create a commercial website. That domain must be used for a charitable organisation.

 

[Retired_Member38]

They are never going to be able to police that, so that would make it a non starter.

Meat.org.uk is a non profit site. Its not a charity, but its clearly a non profit / informational site. If they end up building meat.uk under a similar plan, maybe they'll start selling 'don't eat meat' tshirts. How much of a turnover would you allow them before they're classed a profit site and get kicked off their domain?

 

[Retired_Member42]

So if an org.uk owner gets the .uk version of their domain, they should not be allowed to create a commercial website, or sell the domain on to someone else who will go on to create a commercial website. That domain must be used for a charitable organisation.

You can't implement something like this when Nominet have placed no restirctions on the use of .org.uk to date. As far as Nominet are concerned you're allowed to do what you like with .org.uk, commercial or otherwise. If a .org.uk has an existing commercial site on it that is older than the .co.uk commercial site it should get first crack at it or at least be considered equal.

 

[jasman]

They're not planning on having any restrictions other than possibly limiting it to UK-based entities. At least at the moment. But they are just making it up as they go along. They've decided they want to release .uk for their own purposes - so they can expand Nominet and its revenue, increase their bonuses and turn the Nominet Trust into a giant politically influential and powerful foundation like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation etc in the US. So now they're trying to just appease any opposition so they can push it through. It's not that the public, or Nominet members really want it, it's the Nominet board who want to impose it on everyone else.

 

[TinkyWinky]

Good idea Edwin

Add to your list :

• Categorically no NEED for any new UK suffix

Also add if you so choose :

• Ill-conceived, purely-commercial folly for certain board members of Nom

TW

 

[Retired_Member42]

Well this is the thing. Again there have been no restrictions on which countries the .co.uk can be owned from. Do they lose their .uk version if their .co.uk is older just because they're not in the UK? I have partners in the US who own some high end .co.uk domains and to see them lose .uk because of where they're based would be a bit unfair. Who would get the domain? A UK based .org.uk owner reg'd last week?

 

[Edwin]

The "UK entities" restriction was tossed between V1 and V2. Now it's just a "UK address for service" which might cost a bit to get organised, but which would quite legitimately allow anyone in the world to own a .uk domain (without breaking the rules). There's nothing stopping people outside the UK from buying .uk domains.

The "address for service" requirement is met in certain other cctlds by the registrars, who offer it as a value-add.

 

[Retired_Member42]

I realise that but I'm just wondering how Nominet will play it when awarding US businesses .uk domains even though their .co.uk is registered to a US business without premises in the UK. It seems strange to put that restriction in place and then effectively tell the US owner to get a UK mail address. I don't see the point. On a completely new extension yeah sure, restrict them to UK addresses but when you're talking about giving .uk to existing owners on .co.uk with US addresses it becomes a bit of a mess.

 

[Edwin]

I realise that but I'm just wondering how Nominet will play it when awarding US businesses .uk domains even though their .co.uk is registered to a US business without premises in the UK. It seems strange to put that restriction in place and then effectively tell the US owner to get a UK mail address. I don't see the point. On a completely new extension yeah sure, restrict them to UK addresses but when you're talking about giving .uk to existing owners on .co.uk with US addresses it becomes a bit of a mess.

That's not what an address for service is.

(Please bear in mind when reading the below that we don't yet know what the full V2 text says! Thanks.)

As I understand it, the Whois will continue to have the company's address on it, whatever that address is i.e. it can be anywhere in the world.

However Nominet themselves must (also) have on record a UK address "for service" i.e. an address that they can send legal documents to and have them delivered (i.e. "serviced") in the eyes of the law.

In other words, if Nominet sends something to the UK "address for service" they were given, that's where Nominet's responsibility ends under the law - they would be considered to have given due notice to the entity associated with that address for service.

I guess it's a bit like a billing address and a shipping address for an ecommerce site - they can be the same address, or different.

 

[jasman]

Any US person or business can set up a UK company which could own their domains on their behalf anyway. Many of London's grand houses are owned by foreigners through companies and trusts.

More major .uk cons:

1. The gigantic aggregate cost to the UK economy that would result from hundreds of thousands or millions of businesses having to pay to rebrand their web presence, reprint stationery, signs, branding on vans etc. This would make the UK economy as a whole less competitive.

2. Then we have the corollary of that: Some businesses would take on the .uk domain and rebrand, some wouldn't, so the public would regularly mix up which businesses are using .co.uk and which are using .uk. There would be total confusion and a potential invitation for fraud on a massive scale.

3. Down the line, who would want to invest in a .co.uk or a .uk if the other domain was owned by someone else? Whether you own the .uk or the .co.uk many people are likely to remember it as the other so you're bound to lose a significant proportion of traffic. .com would be a safer option.

 

[Rob_F]

.... Removed - wrong thread ....

 

[Stephen]

confusion 0 if business exists

Thanks for starting your list of "cons", once the detail of the proposal comes out from Nominet on V2.0 I feel more "cons" will be added.

But for the moment I would like to add, that although only a small % of people still use the browser to type in website addresses,
those that type in by mistake yourbusiness.uk when they meant to type in mybusiness.co.uk,
because .uk will take over as the tld of choice, if it does not resolve to the website they were expecting or resolve at all,
then they will assume that your business no longer exists and will look for
an alternative supplier of those goods or services.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Thanks for starting your list of "cons", once the detail of the proposal comes out from Nominet on V2.0 I feel more "cons" will be added.

But for the moment I would like to add, that although only a small % of people still use the browser to type in website addresses,
those that type in by mistake yourbusiness.uk when they meant to type in mybusiness.co.uk,
because .uk will take over as the tld of choice, if it does not resolve to the website they were expecting or resolve at all,
then they will assume that your business no longer exists and will look for
an alternative supplier of those goods or services.

A lot of people are stating that bolded part as being fact, but I don't think its anywhere near certain.

I think if people continue to see Google and Ebay etc on .co.uk, then they will continue to see .co.uk as the main domain. There will be type in errors in both directions.... but I'm expecting the .uk owner to lose more than the .co.uk.

 

[Stephen]

opinion not fact

A lot of people are stating that bolded part as being fact, but I don't think its anywhere near certain.

I think if people continue to see Google and Ebay etc on .co.uk, then they will continue to see .co.uk as the main domain. There will be type in errors in both directions.... but I'm expecting the .uk owner to lose more than the .co.uk.

Sorry if it came across as a fact, it is clearly an opinion as nobody knows
and due the unique circumstances in the UK namespace,
I don't think we can go to another extension like Japan that changed over and say,
this is what happened here, so that is what is going to happen in the .uk over time.

But thanks for pointing out the confusion will work in both directions, so even more trouble for the consumer
and more sites that will not be found, so alternative suppliers will be sought and business lost.

 

[GreyWing]

but I'm expecting the .uk owner to lose more than the .co.uk.

But how long for? I absolutely agree to start with and maybe for 3-4 years in my opinion. Just the uncertainty would stop me investing in a business on .co.uk if I didn't have the .uk to back it up.

Why invest in a declining market?

 

[foz]

What do you think is the acceptable level of percentage in favour for Nominet to push it through? e.g. if its 50% in favour does that justify it being rammed through? My thoughts are ~90% in favour to justify it becoming a reality, that is it has to be overwhelmingly accepted by the community to proceed.

 

[Edwin]

What do you think is the acceptable level of percentage in favour for Nominet to push it through? e.g. if its 50% in favour does that justify it being rammed through? My thoughts are ~90% in favour to justify it becoming a reality, that is it has to be overwhelmingly accepted by the community to proceed.

Well, you could argue that if 50%+1 of people are in favour of something, that's a majority view and all the cover you need to get something actioned (since you can clearly say "More people wanted this than didn't")

I think in practice they're going to have to see a stronger percentage, around the two-thirds mark at least. ("Will we ever know for sure?" is I guess the other question, since they will only be publishing self-selected responses i.e. those whose authors have put their hands up and said "yes, please publish mine")

But we shouldn't make the mistake of confusing the strength of an individual response - either in favour or in opposition - for its contribution to the overall percentage. In other words, in the real world things go ahead all the time where 3 people are extremely vocal in their opposition and 7 people provide quiet, measured support - even though judging by the "noise levels" it might look from the outside that there was a majority of dissenters.

The way V2 has been formulated (and we need the full text to be sure) it seems there's a good prospect that's the scenario we'll be faced with: a core group of "loudly dissenting voices" (mainly, but certainly not exclusively, from the domain industry) vs a more numerous, broader-based contingent who say "well, that seems fair enough(ish)" and give it their approval.

 

[julian]

If we say no .UK then we have to live forever wondering if Nominet or someone else will try to launch a .UK in the future, thus leaving the market full of continued uncertainty.