The three Nominet direct .uk proposals compared

[Whois-Search]

Interesting comparison of the three Nominet .uk consultations:

Source: http://notagreatplacetobe.org.uk/files/2014/01/nominet-proposals-compared.pdf

If you look at the consultation feedback row:

• Around 1000 stakeholders replied to consultation version 1
• Around 313 - 500 stakeholders replied to consultation version 2
• No consultation is offered on the final proposal (version 3)

Q. Just 1500 stakeholders get to decide the future of .uk and no one can comment on version three?
Q. Has anyone asked the Charities / Universities / Councils / Individuals / Companies etc affected by version three?
Q. Do the victims of version three even know about .uk yet?

 

[max_rk]

Interesting, but is there a point to talk about this anymore?

 

[Brassneck]

Interesting, but is there a point to talk about this anymore?

Agree - enough damage already done without keep raking it up.

Quicker it is implemented the better as we will all know where we stand.

Stephen.

 

[Whois-Search]

Interesting, but is there a point to talk about this anymore?

If you own a large portfolio of prime .co.uk domains = no

If you are an organisation without the .co.uk = yes

 

[Edwin]

Agree - enough damage already done without keep raking it up.

Quicker it is implemented the better as we will all know where we stand.

Stephen.

Spot on. Time to salvage whatever confidence in the UK namespace we can!

 

[max_rk]

Andrew most of those organisations have chosen to have distinctly non for profit domains for the purpose, they made their choice at the time of registration.

I have made this point well before last consultation even began and it was discussed here at length. .co.uk is prime commercial domain for UK and it’s only fair that its gets equivalent .uk version which in time will become prime commercial UK domain.

 

[websaway]

If you own a large portfolio of prime .co.uk domains = no

If you are an organisation without the .co.uk = yes

Even if it's interesting would it change anything ?

 

[Whois-Search]

It won't change a thing - this is going ahead so don't worry...

However i'd like you to think about what happens when a parked domain such as www.oxford.co.uk gets the .uk

Rather than www.oxford.ac.uk or www.oxford.gov.uk who may not even know about it in the first place

Who is going to kick off then? And who will be portrayed in the media as being in the wrong?

It would only take a few organisations like that to have a word with the Government to change things at Nominet - which would be far worse than not allowing you lot your .uk equivalents!

 

[websaway]

It won't change a thing - this is going ahead so don't worry...

However i'd like you to think about what happens when a parked domain such as www.oxford.co.uk gets the .uk

Rather than www.oxford.ac.uk or www.oxford.gov.uk who may not even know about it in the first place

Who is going to kick off then? And who will be portrayed in the media as being in the wrong?

It would only take a few organisations like that to have a word with the Government to change things at Nominet - which would be far worse than not allowing you lot your .uk equivalents!

But oxford co uk bought the rights to the .uk when they purchased the name.
gov and ac bought the rights to those extensions, had they have wanted business then they should have bought business and became businesses.
If they were given the rights it would simply be a windfall benefit.

Actually it's questionable whether they should have been given the rights to place.gov. uk and place .ac.uk
in the first place, was that an already unfair advantage.

 

[AssetDomains]

Q. Just 1500 stakeholders get to decide the future of .uk and no one can comment on version three?
Q. Has anyone asked the Charities / Universities / Councils / Individuals / Companies etc affected by version three?
Q. Do the victims of version three even know about .uk yet?

I agree its time to push on with it a look to the future to answer your questions

Q1 Maybe the drop off in respondents 1 -2 prompted them to wonder do other stake holders really care. The proposals did get coverage in the tech related press.

Q2
Charities - still have org.uk specifically set up for them.

Universities - I'm not sure why they would want to move away from .ac.uk it tells readers the information is being provided by a trusted authoritative source.
I've not long finished my degree and sighting anything from websites that didn't end .ac.uk / .edu in reports was strongly discouraged.

Councils - Aren't these covered under .gov plans

Individuals & Companies - have five years to see what happens and make a decision

Q3. I'm not sure there are victims other than the very few who loose out to government websites hopefully nominet can sort this out fairly on a case by case basis

 

[Edwin]

.ac.uk and .gov.uk aren't even part of the normal domain system - Nominet has no say in their administration - so there was never a valid reason for including them in a release mechanism (whether V1, V2 or V999)

JANET has been part of the decision/consultation process since V1 so they know what's going on. They may or may not like V3 but it won't come as a surprise to them.

 

[Whois-Search]

.ac.uk and .gov.uk aren't even part of the normal domain system - Nominet has no say in their administration - so there was never a valid reason for including them in a release mechanism (whether V1, V2 or V999)

JANET has been part of the decision/consultation process since V1 so they know what's going on. They may or may not like V3 but it won't come as a surprise to them.

Exactly and why were they not? Doesn't matter - the confusion is still going to happen.

When Oxford students start going to a Sedo page www.oxford.co.uk (soon to be on the .uk) instead of www.oxford.ac.uk what happens then? The University tries to make a DRS complaint to Nominet? Press stories? Domainers attacked as cybersquatters again?

 

[Edwin]

Three more points:

A) Nominet have stated they will keep .org.uk as their main URL (doesn't preclude them setting up a .uk redirect) to reflect their status

B) V3 is fairer to more businesses than V2 was, and V2 was fairer than V1. By and large it's businesses, and their collective £billions in marketing spend, who have done the most to "brand" the UK namespace itself vs global extensions such as .com

C) There will always be "exceptions" in any release process. However, V3 has fewer than V2 which has fewer than V1. With V3 the exceptions are down to a couple of percent at worst.

At a certain point, arguing stops looking rational and starts looking petty/vindictive. And once that point is reached (I'd suggest we're pretty close to that point) one risks losing both the argument itself AND any store of credibility built up until now.

 

[Whois-Search]

At a certain point, arguing stops looking rational and starts looking petty/vindictive. And once that point is reached (I'd suggest we're pretty close to that point) one risks losing both the argument itself AND any store of credibility built up until now.

Edwin... then again some people only think about their own portfolio (themselves) rather than other people and the consequences down the line. To me that is pretty petty and lacking in credibility.

I refer you to the letter from UCISA date January 2013:

Thus, as an example, only the University of Anytown should be allowed to register, if
it so wishes, universityofanytown.uk or anytownuniversity.uk. This should only be
made available to the institution referred to. The sunrise period system clearly shows
that this is possible; UCISA would recommend that it is extended indefinitely for
such clear cases.

https://www.ucisa.ac.uk/~/media/Files/members/consultations/2013/UCISAresponse_Nominetconsulatation

Let's have another letter on version 3 published on the Nominet website - if they endorse it then fair enough.

 

[AssetDomains]

Another point on .ac.uk If you look at the some of the top UK universities out of the pure geos on the list.
Just under half 45% don't even use their GEO.ac.uk including both Oxford and Cambridge two of the best in the world.
So I'm not sure why Nominet should have given them rights to the geo.uk

 

[julian]

I'm sorry to say, but to dredge all this up and now, and based what you've said in these posts, only makes it look like you or someone you know have an ulterior motive - why do the Charities / Universities / Councils / Individuals suddenly need an anti .UK crusader this far down the line

Interesting comparison of the three Nominet .uk consultations:

Source: http://notagreatplacetobe.org.uk/files/2014/01/nominet-proposals-compared.pdf

If you look at the consultation feedback row:

• Around 1000 stakeholders replied to consultation version 1
• Around 313 - 500 stakeholders replied to consultation version 2
• No consultation is offered on the final proposal (version 3)

Q. Just 1500 stakeholders get to decide the future of .uk and no one can comment on version three?
Q. Has anyone asked the Charities / Universities / Councils / Individuals / Companies etc affected by version three?
Q. Do the victims of version three even know about .uk yet?

 

[Whois-Search]

I'm sorry to say, but to dredge all this up and now, and based what you've said in these posts, only makes it look like you or someone you know have an ulterior motive - why do the Charities / Universities / Councils / Individuals suddenly need an anti .UK crusader this far down the line

What can I possibly have to gain from asking questions about the number of responses to three different proposals?
I found the table interesting that is all - The same question has already been asked before now:

Why was there no new public comment period on significant changes made to the final proposal?

See: http://nominetwatch.com/three-questions-that-need-to-be-answered-over-direct-uk/

Just because you got what you want doesn't mean we should ignore the process that got us here.

Sorry for asking the question(s)!

 

[anthony]

It doesn't escape anyone's notice that V3 also benefits domainers portfolios for many of the .co.uk domains caught over the past 10 years. This decision is like a gift from Nominet, everyone knows it!

 

[jasman]

Interesting comparison of the three Nominet .uk consultations:

If you look at the consultation feedback row:

• Around 1000 stakeholders replied to consultation version 1
• Around 313 - 500 stakeholders replied to consultation version 2
• No consultation is offered on the final proposal (version 3)

Q. Just 1500 stakeholders get to decide the future of .uk and no one can comment on version three?
Q. Has anyone asked the Charities / Universities / Councils / Individuals / Companies etc affected by version three?
Q. Do the victims of version three even know about .uk yet?

I agree with the point you are making and there is a principle at stake here - namely that sweeping changes are being brought about with as your figures show a pathetically inadequate consultation. Before the V3 announcement, the domain community was very worried that Nominet were dead intent on pushing this through, having seen them resurrect the idea after a hard fight. Many felt that nothing could be done to stop them. I am sure most of the opposition came from the domainer community, and I have no doubt that the V3 proposal was designed to appease that group. Most domainers are looking at it from their own selfish perspective rather than on the principle of how the process has been conducted.

The vast majority of .co.uk registrants were never directly consulted and since these changes will affect them they should have been. I would think most .co.uk registrants are still unaware of the .uk plan and OK some safeguards have been promised such as the 5 year hold on the equivalent .uk, but the point is they have not been consulted or granted consent and Nominet should be our administrator, our servant, not our master.

In my opinion Nominet should have contacted all registrants and invited them to vote on it. If this would have been cost-prohibitive, then Nominet should have just not proceeded with the idea on the basis that they had not adequately consulted those affected. But I very much doubt contacting all registrants would have been cost-prohibitive anyway as they used to physically post registration certificates for every domain registered, and even nowadays Nominet email every registrant when a domain is due to expire, so they could contact all .co.uk owners if they wanted to. But one suspects they did not because (like an EU referendum) they knew there would be a no vote.

 

[websaway]

I think that v3 was such a reasonable compromise towards co.uk owners reservations that nominet would consider it to be acceptable to the majority and introduce it without causing further damage by issuing another consultation.

Had Nominet gone straight to the final draft at outset this would probably have gone through much easier.
The reason so many were up in arms was because the first consultation was an affront to current co.uk owners.
Nominet wanted to introduce .uk and co.uk owners said that had it been introduced from day 1 it would have been a better extension, therefore the compromise with the 5 year rule and lower registration costs was a winning compromise and much easier for the co.uk owner to swallow.

Why would Nominet who had already destroyed confidence in the .uk namespace extend further uncertainty and continue to damage the brand and become less competitive by going to a third consultation.
The mistakes were made earlier in the process, not at the end as some are trying to suggest.