.uk .UK Announced

[websaway]

It appears by nominets update 18 dec 2012
That there are only two options for the introduction of direct.uk

Quote
“Whether direct.uk should be treated as a new, distinct product within the .uk portfolio or as a transition or migration from existing SLDs”

Unquote
Say it was a new distinct product and say a very small proportion ( 5000 ) of current website owners who have invested heavily in their online presence feel, rightly so, that they don’t require the new extension ( it’s a new extension, they already have the co.uk they don’t need a new extension, they didn’t buy the org.uk the me.uk the biz or info and security has until now never been an issue for them).
Go forward 2 years and these 5000 web addresses have been registered by other registrants. What a mess !

Say it was a transition or migration.
IMPOSSIBLE to implement with some 10,000,000 domains already registered.

I become more confused the more I think about the reasoning behind this debacle

 

[Stephen]

What can we agree upon?

Same here.

Unfortunately we will never know the make up of any decline in the number of .co.uk domains.

Maybe we can agree that both the Google changes and the .uk proposal have negative effects on the number of UK domains being registered/kept?

I do hope that Nominet do start to be more open and provide lists of New and Expired UK domains in the future.

Also it would be nice to see the data on if registrants have more or less faith in UK domains by renewals and new registrations
for only 1 year than the traditional 2 years?

I was suprised that 16% of Uk domains were only for 1 year renewal.

 

[fozfoz is verified member.]

I do hope that Nominet do start to be more open and provide lists of New and Expired UK domains in the future.

Agreed. The monthly renewal % rate could remain steady if new registrations declined that month? I don't think the % rate can give a true picture of what's taking place.

 

[NigelNigel is verified member.]

Reply from Nominet

Hi Everyone,

I received a reply about a week ago from Eleanor Bradley COO at Nominet to my email (which I posted earlier in this thread). I sent a further email to nominet last week (and chased them for a reply today) and I'll post my email here in a minute.


Thank you for your email and my apologies for the delay in responding. I note your comment regarding your email relating to a couple of specific points only and that your full feedback has been provided in response to the consultation document. Thank you for taking the time to give us your views.

Nominet sought legal advice on the specific question of whether we are able to email current registrants to alert them to the consultation. We were advised that whilst the Data Protection Act permits us to contact registrants in relation to the services we are already providing to them, direct.uk is a proposed new and separate service and so is not covered by this provision. In addition, the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 expressly prohibits the use of email to contact customers in order to market similar products, unless the customer was given the option to opt out of receiving such emails at the time their details were collected. Whilst I’m sure some would argue that an email about the consultation is not direct marketing it is highly likely that others would disagree and would consider such an email to be spam.

Regarding the roundtables these events had a good level of attendance from a broad range of stakeholders, to the extent that we scheduled an additional business and industry session. We will be providing the details of those who registered as part of the summary that will be published after the close of the consultation.

Kind regards


Eleanor


Eleanor Bradley


COO


Nominet UK

 

[NigelNigel is verified member.]

Reply to Nominet

Here is the email I sent Nominet a week ago.

Dear Eleanor

Thank you for your email received today. I am very surprised that your legal advisers advised you not to send emails to registrants due to the Data Protection Act and their view that “direct.uk is a proposed new and separate service and is not covered by this provision”. I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of this legal advice.


You also say that the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 prohibits the use of emails to market similar products, and that such emails would be regarded by some as spam.


I think Nominet , and your legal advisers, are mistakenly focusing on direct.uk as a ‘new and separate service’ without giving any thought to your existing registrants (particularly .co.uk domain owners as that is the business extension as currently defined by you). Direct.uk, if it is introduced according to the proposed consultation, will adversely affect existing .co.uk registrants of their enjoyment and usage of their current domain or domains. You should be emailing existing registrants because they should be given every chance to respond to this consultation, and if they wish to, to voice their concern and opposition at a ‘new service’ that may have a disastrous effect on their business in the future.


Nominet, and your legal advisers, must be well aware, that introducing a second, similar sounding .uk extension, specifically designed for business, into the .uk namespace will certainly devalue the equivalent named existing .co.uk domain name due to loss of prestige, traffic and general confusion (i.e. emails will definitely be sent to the wrong address – possibly to a competitor in the same market). So those businesses should have been alerted at this early stage so they could respond to the consultation - not because they wanted to buy a ‘new service’ from you.


I have looked at the current privacy page on the nominet website and it certainly seems to allow you to contact registrants under 1,2 and 3 below (I have numbered the relevant paragraphs for ease of reference).


Uses made of the information



We use information held about you in the following ways:



• To ensure that content from our site is presented in the most effective manner for you and for your computer.



1)• To provide you with information, products or services that you request from us or which we feel may interest you, where you have consented to be contacted for such purposes.



2)• To carry out our obligations arising from any contracts entered into between you and us.



3)• To allow you to participate in our applications process.



If you do not want us to use your data in this way, or to pass your details on to third parties for marketing purposes, please write to us using the address information shown above.



I think it will be fairly easy for legal advisers (possibly acting for registrants who find out that they were left out of the consultation process) in the future, to argue that you were certainly obliged to contact them by email ‘to carry out our obligations arising from any contracts entered into between you and us’. Paragraph 1) and 3) are also clearly relevant.


Can I ask you whether you, and your legal advisers, have considered the detrimental effect that direct.uk may have on your existing registrants as detailed above. If so, why are you not contacting those registrations under your ‘obligations’ shown in 2) above.


In view of the legal advice you received which stopped you sending emails to registrants, can I ask you how you propose informing registrants of the introduction of direct.uk if it proceeds in its current form? If your legal advisers believe that it is a ‘new service’ and that the Data Protection Act (and your interpretation of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003) prevents you from emailing registrants are you saying that no notice by email will be given to existing registrants of the chance to register a direct.uk domain if it proceeds? Will existing registrants need to rely on information from the media, press, and newspapers to find out about the possible launch of direct.uk?


Turning to the various events held around the country. You argue that they ‘had a good level of attendance’ whereas I have read that Belfast was cancelled due to only one person responding, and Cardiff had just four attendees. It worries me that I have only read positive reports from Nominet on the consultation process. I hope that the published consultation will include all the negative aspects of the process i.e. the fact that just four people attended your scheduled meetings for the areas of Northern Ireland and Wales. This is, in my view, a pitiful amount that discredits the whole consultation exercise. Are you not in any way disappointed at the attendance at some of your meetings? Are you not disappointed that the Belfast meeting was cancelled? Do you not agree that attendance at the meetings, and feedback to the consultation, would have been much greater if registrants had been sent an email about direct.uk?


I thank you for your attention to this and now look forward to receiving your reply.


Kind regards,

 

[getmeingetmein is verified member.]

Nominet sought legal advice on the specific question of whether we are able to email current registrants to alert them to the consultation. [/B][/I]

I wonder if that legal advice came from the same company that will be responsible for 'trademark verification'.

.uk is a proposed new and separate service

They are certainly sticking to their script, but I don't agree at all.

 

[Stephen]

New or possible migration?

Hi Everyone,
I received a reply about a week ago from Eleanor Bradley COO at Nominet to my email (which I posted earlier in this thread). I sent a further email to nominet last week (and chased them for a reply today) and I'll post my email here in a minute.


Thank you for your email and my apologies for the delay in responding. I note your comment regarding your email relating to a couple of specific points only and that your full feedback has been provided in response to the consultation document. Thank you for taking the time to give us your views.

Nominet sought legal advice on the specific question of whether we are able to email current registrants to alert them to the consultation. We were advised that whilst the Data Protection Act permits us to contact registrants in relation to the services we are already providing to them, direct.uk is a proposed new and separate service and so is not covered by this provision. In addition, the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 expressly prohibits the use of email to contact customers in order to market similar products, unless the customer was given the option to opt out of receiving such emails at the time their details were collected. Whilst I’m sure some would argue that an email about the consultation is not direct marketing it is highly likely that others would disagree and would consider such an email to be spam.

.....

Kind regards
Eleanor
Eleanor Bradley
COO
Nominet UK

According to conversations I had with Nominet it was only an internal legal opinion, at no time did they seek an external legal opion for any aspect of the .uk proposal.

When you the consider the recent Nominet new view:

It appears by nominets update 18 dec 2012
That there are only two options for the introduction of direct.uk
Quote
“Whether direct.uk should be treated as a new, distinct product within the .uk portfolio or as a transition or migration from existing SLDs”

Then .uk is of relevance to .co.uk and .org.uk owners, so they should have all been contacted by email.

It has been such a blinked approach by Nominet about .uk being NEW
because some of those at Nominet wished it was, as it is not NEW! in my view

 

[websaway]

Well done Nigel.
I can't see a copy of the legal advice coming to light, but asking was a smart move.

In general the reply to your email was a sham and I don't use the term lightly, and seems to me to be the general attitude from Nominet regarding replies to questions.

 

[NigelNigel is verified member.]

According to conversations I had with Nominet it was only an internal legal opinion, at no time did they seek an external legal opion for any aspect of the .uk proposal.

When you the consider the recent Nominet new view:


Then .uk is of relevance to .co.uk and .org.uk owners, so they should have all been contacted by email.

It has been such a blinked approach by Nominet about .uk being NEW
because some of those at Nominet wished it was, not because it is new!

Interesting that conversation you had with nominet Stephen. 'sought legal advice' would in my mind mean external legal advice. Have to wait and see what they say next.

 

[NigelNigel is verified member.]

Nominet blog comments being censored?

On another point - have any of you tried adding comments below nominet blogs. I entered a comment over a week ago at this blog by Phil Kingsland

http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/insight/directuk-domain-name-consultation-update-and-clarifications

It said my comment was being moderated but never appeared. Unfortunately I didn't take a copy (and as usual nominet don't send you a copy of your comment) so I can't quote what I said. I know my comment was factual and not derogatory in any way but it was totally opposed to direct.uk. Which begs the question - are nominet censoring comments? i.e. if it had been pro direct.uk would it have appeared long ago? Be interested to know if anyone else has had a similar problem?

 

[websaway]

On another point - have any of you tried adding comments below nominet blogs. I entered a comment over a week ago at this blog by Phil Kingsland

http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/insight/directuk-domain-name-consultation-update-and-clarifications

It said my comment was being moderated but never appeared. Unfortunately I didn't take a copy (and as usual nominet don't send you a copy of your comment) so I can't quote what I said. I know my comment was factual and not derogatory in any way but it was totally opposed to direct.uk. Which begs the question - are nominet censoring comments? i.e. if it had been pro direct.uk would it have appeared long ago? Be interested to know if anyone else has had a similar problem?

I don’t know about anyone else but I have never been under the illusion that nominet would be fair in defending their position. They are in the same position as a company sitting on a plot of land that could yield massive development potential and have to find a way of getting acceptance for their proposals. They don’t argue in the early stages they save their arguments for after they have mined opinions of potential objections.
And don’t forget big property developers buy objectors off as they go along toward their goal.

 

[NigelNigel is verified member.]

Reply from nominet

Just got a very concise reply to my email (posted earlier in thread). A number of my questions have not been addressed including this very important one:

'In view of the legal advice you received which stopped you sending emails to registrants, can I ask you how you propose informing registrants of the introduction of direct.uk if it proceeds in its current form? If your legal advisers believe that it is a ‘new service’ and that the Data Protection Act (and your interpretation of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003) prevents you from emailing registrants are you saying that no notice by email will be given to existing registrants of the chance to register a direct.uk domain if it proceeds? Will existing registrants need to rely on information from the media, press, and newspapers to find out about the possible launch of direct.uk?'

Eleanor Bradley's reply below:

Dear Nigel,

I’m afraid Nominet does not share its legal advice with third parties.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion regarding the status of direct.uk as a new service. However, it is our view that sending out an email to every registrant of a .uk domain name is not compatible with Nominet’s legal obligations regarding its use of registrants’ personal data. The privacy policy to which you refer relates only to personal data collected from visitors to our website, not to the personal data of domain name registrants.

Turning to your questions regarding the in-person events, I cannot add much to my previous email, the events were well attended by a broad range of stakeholders and we received lots of valuable feedback.


Regards

Eleanor

 

[TinkyWinky]

She's a fool. Been blinded by the lure of money, power and bonuses for .UK coming to fruition.

 

[websaway]

Just got a very concise reply to my email (posted earlier in thread). A number of my questions have not been addressed including this very important one:

'In view of the legal advice you received which stopped you sending emails to registrants, can I ask you how you propose informing registrants of the introduction of direct.uk if it proceeds in its current form? If your legal advisers believe that it is a ‘new service’ and that the Data Protection Act (and your interpretation of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003) prevents you from emailing registrants are you saying that no notice by email will be given to existing registrants of the chance to register a direct.uk domain if it proceeds? Will existing registrants need to rely on information from the media, press, and newspapers to find out about the possible launch of direct.uk?'

Eleanor Bradley's reply below:

Dear Nigel,

I’m afraid Nominet does not share its legal advice with third parties.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion regarding the status of direct.uk as a new service. However, it is our view that sending out an email to every registrant of a .uk domain name is not compatible with Nominet’s legal obligations regarding its use of registrants’ personal data. The privacy policy to which you refer relates only to personal data collected from visitors to our website, not to the personal data of domain name registrants.

Turning to your questions regarding the in-person events, I cannot add much to my previous email, the events were well attended by a broad range of stakeholders and we received lots of valuable feedback.


Regards

Eleanor

I didn't think they would share their third party info at this stage, but they may have to at some time in the future.

Do you have the accurate attendance figures for all the events ?
She doesn't seem to have them.

 

[GreyWing]

She's a fool. Been blinded by the lure of money, power and bonuses for .UK coming to fruition.

Eleanor is probably one of the fair ones mate. You know my stance regarding Nominet, so it hurts when I say something good about one of them. Eleanor is as far as I know genuine and honest.

 

[fozfoz is verified member.]

Eleanor is probably one of the fair ones mate. You know my stance regarding Nominet, so it hurts when I say something good about one of them. Eleanor is as far as I know genuine and honest.

She is seen to be pushing direct.uk, this will hurt her amongst some members. I certainly wouldn't want her as CEO.

 

[WealdDomains]

However, it is our view that sending out an email to every registrant of a .uk domain name is not compatible with Nominet’s legal obligations regarding its use of registrants’ personal data.

As I think I mentioned several weeks ago, I really struggle with this.

I can understand that there is the potential for debate over the details of registrants of type Individual (at which point I think the other strong arguments about duty of care etc would kick in regardless).

However, I really don't understand the argument in terms of other (non-personal) registrant types such as companies (Ltd/plc), charities/clubs/societies, and those who are formally defined as Sole Traders.

In all those cases, I would see the human being as acting in a 'corporate' role as an officer/employee/director/owner etc rather than in a personal protected capacity.

Taking a further crude, simplistic leap from there, I would also have thought that the existing registrants most affected by the proposal are those who are (or should be) non-Individual registrants anyway, making the 'personal' data aspect less critical in practice.

If one were cynical (which I genuinely try not to be), one could foresee Nominet taking further advice after the consultation period closes, at which point they could say : sorry about our faux pas earlier meaning everyone missed out on the consultation but the good news is that we've confirmed it's OK for us for inform/market you about the launch itself

 

[Brassneck]

However, I really don't understand the argument in terms of other (non-personal) registrant types such as companies (Ltd/plc), charities/clubs/societies, and those who are formally defined as Sole Traders.

David - you are correct - the Data Protection Act only applies to individuals. Consequently I don't see why Nominet could have at least alerted business entities, organisations and others not covered by DPA.

 

[Brassneck]

If anybody has the energy I think this is the relevant Government Guidance - http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisat...communications/the_guide/electronic_mail.aspx

Stephen.

 

[WealdDomains]

If anybody has the energy

I'm feeling a trifle weak , but it feels like this link turns it into a discussion about whereabouts along the spectrum the slider bar transfers from black-and-white inclusion/exclusion into a grey debate over the duty of care kicking in, rather than a fundamental disagreement with the concept.

It feels like plcs and limited companies are still clearly in the OK-to-contact space (subjectively, they probably still comprise a very high percentage of those seriously jeopardised) while the (perhaps-generous !) treatment of partnerships and sole traders kicks in slightly earlier than I expected, but with the duty-of-care dimension still loitering in the background regardless.