.UK Announced

[willbon]

Edwin to his credit did bring this matter up as the first point to be discussed at several of the Nominet roundtable meetings in London, much to the suprise of the Nominet management.

I think that the nominet staff just got carried away with the success of the short auctions, desire for growth and the panic created by the thousands of the new ICANN gTLD's plus the fear of being left behind as not being the 4th largest registrar in the world!

I hate that word 'growth'... Has nobody realised that it's just a modern word for 'greed'!

I still don't understand why Nominet feels the need to be so competitive on the world stage. It's only competitor in the UK is .com and anyone needing a domain for recognised use in the UK comes to them... what more do they want?

Seems like their concerns are not following their original remit which I should hope was to serve the UK population with a namespace. Not serve the UK namespace.

 

[anthony]

Edwin to his credit did bring this matter up as the first point to be discussed at several of the Nominet roundtable meetings in London, much to the suprise of the Nominet management.

I think that the nominet staff just got carried away with the success of the short auctions, desire for growth and the panic created by the thousands of the new ICANN gTLD's plus the fear of being left behind as not being the 4th largest registrar in the world!

I think even more primitive urges can be added to that list!

 

[Edwin]

It does seem strange that absolutely nobody thought about the need for more .uk space at the birth of the .uk.

They did. It's important to keep history straight. Nominet didn't invent the .uk namespace, it inherited it in the mid-1990s and certain things had already been established then (like .co.uk and .org.uk).

It would have been prescient of them to push immediately for .uk at that time - and would likely have caused no issues at all given the tiny, tiny number of .co.uk domains registered back then - but they didn't. However, put in the context of the very early development of the web back then, it's hard to fault their actions AT THE TIME for choosing the namespace status quo they were handed. They were a brand new organisation just finding its feet and running the UK namespace on a commercial basis for the very first time ever.

I'm the first to point fingers at Nominet when they deserve to be pointed, as I hope my words and actions on here and elsewhere have shown. But I think it's also vital to make the distinction between stuff that "is their fault" and stuff that actually, at the end of the day, really isn't.

 

[Edwin]

If somebody ownes the short domain Right.co.uk (good catch by the way) should they be able to stop every domain containing the word "right" like RightMove.co.uk, RightDirection.co.uk etc?

No of course not. But if a company branded its product "Rhytte" and launched a site Rhytte.co.uk and then that product became somewhat "famous" it really would have a right - forgive the pun - to block RhytteMove.co.uk, RhytteDirection.co.uk etc.

That's the difference between generic/descriptive terms used as brands, and "coined" brands. The latter have a far lower burden of proof to meet for a "bad faith" finding to apply.

 

[mojoco]

Not so, 'Nominet' is Latin, meaning names or to name, it is perfectly legitimate to see it crop up in a lot of European languages!

So if there are other interested parties, it would be fair for Nominet to have to bid competitively at auction for Nominet.uk, and the other party could in theory win the domain.

 

[foz]

If Rhytte_co_uk's registration by another party predated the TM application, they'd have no show in claiming bad faith.

 

[Stephen]

gr8.co.uk?

No of course not. But if a company branded its product "Rhytte" and launched a site Rhytte.co.uk and then that product became somewhat "famous" it really would have a right - forgive the pun - to block RhytteMove.co.uk, RhytteDirection.co.uk etc.

That's the difference between generic/descriptive terms used as brands, and "coined" brands. The latter have a far lower burden of proof to meet for a "bad faith" finding to apply.

How does "time" and "success" fit into your viewpoint.

For example if gr8.co.uk which was registered in 1998 but has not yet been developed, got developed by owner or a new owner.

If that brand acheived success would all prior domains that commenced with gr8 that exist should be they be cancelled?
or only cancel ones not developed at the time gr8.co.uk become popular?
or is it only future .co.uk domains that start with gr8 should be stopped from being created?

This fits into .uk debate for me as trademarks are currently the central plank for Nominet in obtaining .uk domain and exploring different aspects of domain protection can further options and possible solutions.

 

[Edwin]

How does "time" and"success" fit into your viewpoint.

For example if gr8.co.uk which was registered in 1998 but has not yet been developed, got developed by owner or a new owner.

If that brand acheived success would all prior domains that commenced with gr8 that exist should be they be cancelled? NO

or only cancel ones not developed at the time gr8.co.uk become popular? TRICKY

or is it only future .co.uk domains that start with gr8 should be stopped from being created? PROBABLY

 

[Nigel]

In March 2012 Nominet's Annual UK Internet Policy Forum, at which Ed Vaizey was a keynote speaker, made the following observations:


".uk Policy and International Domain Space Expansion

As ICANN prepares to open up new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), several delegates voiced concerns over what this might mean for the global internet. One particular concern noted by several delegates was that there could be a massive scope for confusion, which could lead to an increase in cyber fraud.

A representative from ICANN highlighted that the aim of opening up new gTLDs is to provide new opportunities. He pointed to the .uk domain, which just registered its 10 millionth domain, as a brand that has become known and trusted since the country code top-level domain was introduced."

http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/58021_Policy_Forum_report_final.pdf


Note that the ICANN representative "pointed to the .uk domain, which just registered its 10 millionth domain, as a brand that has become known and trusted" and then consider Phil Kingsland, Nominet's Director of Marketing, commenting on the proposed introduction of direct.uk in a Guardian article just 9 months later:

"We believe that the proposed product would create a new, trusted online home for British businesses"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-net...2012/dec/17/value-secure-uk-namespace-nominet

So what was wrong with the trusted product that had just registered its 10 millionth domain?

And what about 'confusion'? Why is it Nominet launched a consultation that never mentioned the possibility of confusion between two designated business domains - .uk and .co.uk. I read in a Nominet report yesterday that they regard themselves as 'open' 'honest' and 'unbiased'. If Nominet were truly open, honest and unbiased they would have at least discussed the possibility of confusion by the launch of .uk. They would have at least given the pros and cons of such a move. Existing registrants can see the confusion, but the domain registry can't - strange that isn't it? Must be the pound signs obscuring their view.

 

[Stephen]

.uk pros and cons

......And what about 'confusion'? Why is it Nominet launched a consultation that never mentioned the possibility of confusion between two designated business domains - .uk and .co.uk. I read in a Nominet report yesterday that they regard themselves as 'open' 'honest' and 'unbiased'. If Nominet were truly open, honest and unbiased they would have at least discussed the possibility of confusion by the launch of .uk. They would have at least given the pros and cons of such a move. Existing registrants can see the confusion, but the domain registry can't - strange that isn't it? Must be the pound signs obscuring their view.

Nominet's defense has been ..... sorry I dont know because they have never supplied a satisfactory explanation or any answers on confusion.

Can you find a .uk FAQ that answered it?

One reason they consultation may not have gone wider to registrants and the public is that under the government guidlelines on "consultation" Nominet would have been required to add more content to explain the situation and background as the reader/participant would have less knowledge than the registrars they did contact.

I asked Nominet during the process to add such ".uk pros and cons" to their website during the consultation, they replied saying they were gathering information at this stage and it would therefore not be appropriate to do so.

 

[Nigel]

Nominet's defense has been ..... sorry I dont know because they have never supplied a satisfactory explanation or any answers on confusion.

Can you find a .uk FAQ that answered it?

One reason they consultation may not have gone wider to registrants and the public is that under the government guidlelines on "consultation" Nominet would have been required to add more content to explain the situation and background as the reader/participant would have less knowledge than the registrars they did contact.

I asked Nominet during the process to add such ".uk pros and cons" to their website during the consultation, they replied saying they were gathering information at this stage and it would therefore not be appropriate to do so.

Thanks Stephen - interesting that you specifically asked them why they hadn't listed the pros and cons. It's clear that their consultation and the various articles and videos since have only listed the pros. Then they give you the 'gathering information' reason. Makes us feel more secure i.e. there's going to be more to this consultation - they're going to list the pros and cons later. As we all now that's part of their plan. Because we know, from their own words, that they would push forward with .uk if the consultation responses gave them the green light. I had made some notes on the UK registrars conference 2012 and just listened to some excerpts of that video link.

Piers White - says at 4mins30sec
"this feedback will help us to shape the plans and take everyones views into account"

Lesley Cowley - says at 15mins 50sec

"during 2013...depending on consultation responses either launch or shelve direct.uk"

http://www.nominet.org.uk/how-participate/events/events-meetings/uk-registrar-conference

 

[Stephen]

confusion?

Just finished the 1 hour webinar that was .wales with Nominet.

I was one of 39 guests.

They started about the options with .wales and .cymru and I thought this was interesting, on the question Nigel recently raised, they pointed out:

Concerned about the risk of cybersquatting if there is no link between the two tld's

So if they think .wales and .cymru different ownership would be confusing what about .co.uk and .uk,
especially as even under their proposal probably due to domain brand protection
it would be the same owner the majority of the time, so the mindset would be established.

Also they clarified a DNSSEC issue at the roundtable meetings, during .uk roundtable meetings I was told that DNSSEC was a compulsory requirement of the new ICANN gTLD's and that was a main reason why .uk need it, to compete against these new gTLD's.

However as it is only optional for .wales I asked what happened to the compulsory ICANN requirement on DNSSEC? It was stated today that it is compulsory for the registry(Nominet) to be able to sign it, it is not compulsory for the registrant to adopt it.

Nominet is in compliance with DNSSEC now for .co.uk and .org.uk and therefore there was no need to make it compulsory using ICANN rules as cover, another smokescreen.

 

[Nigel]

Just finished the 1 hour webinar that was .wales with Nominet.

I was one of 39 guests.

They started about the options with .wales and .cymru and I thought this was interesting, on the question Nigel recently raised, they pointed out:

Also they clarified a DNSSEC issue at the roundtable meetings, during .uk roundtable meetings I was told that DNSSEC was a compulsory requirement of the new ICANN gTLD's and that was a main reason why .uk need it, to compete against these new gTLD's.

However as it is only optional for .wales I asked what happened to the compulsory ICANN requirement on DNSSEC? It was stated today that it is compulsory for the registry(Nominet) to be able to sign it, it is not compulsory for the registrant to adopt it.

Nominet is in compliance with DNSSEC now for .co.uk and .org.uk and therefore there was no need to make it compulsory using ICANN rules as cover, another smokescreen.

Well done there Stephen - you've collated some important info - shows the two faces of Nominet.

 

[GreyWing]

Well done there Stephen - you've collated some important info - shows the two faces of Nominet.

Why have you stopped at two mate? I'm well into double figures

 

[TinkyWinky]

I still don't understand why Nominet feels the need to be so competitive on the world stage.

Not sure this is the whole of Nominet's view - the sheep are following the shepherd - the shepherd that thinks "they" know best and is sooo desparate /wants an British Empire badge thingy!

That is the only conclusion I can come to as the sheer thought of a .UK is insane after 15 years plus of successful extensions as they stand right now.

 

[Nigel]

I've just downloaded the Welsh consultation form. I'm staggered by the duplicity of Nominet. And I think the way they have worded the .wales consultation compared with the .co.uk consultation opens up Nominet to the charge of discrimination against existing .co.uk registrants. Thank goodness Stephen alerted us to the .wales consultation and all that it entails. Have you seen Nominet's observation in the consultation that running .wales and .cymru could lead to 'increased risk of consumer confusion and cyber squatting". They even kindly ask them a question about this.

Now we all know that 'consumer confusion' between .uk and .co.uk will be far greater. These will be domains both designated as commercial domains. These will be domains using primarily the same language. Yet with us Nominet cannot bring themselves to utter the words 'customer confusion'. It proves that Nominet say whatever is expedient. Here are some excerpts.

Overall Registration Policies

"...There is also an increased risk of consumer confusion and cyber squatting if registrants are not given the option of registering in the alternative domain at the point of registration...."

And a Question they ask on this:

5) If we adopt option 3 what steps could Nominet take to avoid cyber squatters registering in the alternative registry befor the original registrant has a chance to do so?

Another thing. Our consultation was full of loaded questions and we had no chance of considering the form before completing it. Whereas the Welsh had the opportunity of downloading it and emailing it back. Just another co-incidence? or another blatant discrimination.

http://www.domainforwales.org.uk/content/have-your-say

 

[anthony]

I've just downloaded the Welsh consultation form. I'm staggered by the duplicity of Nominet. And I think the way they have worded the .wales consultation compared with the .co.uk consultation opens up Nominet to the charge of discrimination against existing .co.uk registrants. Thank goodness Stephen alerted us to the .wales consultation and all that it entails. Have you seen Nominet's observation in the consultation that running .wales and .cymru could lead to 'increased risk of consumer confusion and cyber squatting". They even kindly ask them a question about this.

Now we all know that 'consumer confusion' between .uk and .co.uk will be far greater. These will be domains both designated as commercial domains. These will be domains using primarily the same language. Yet with us Nominet cannot bring themselves to utter the words 'customer confusion'. It proves that Nominet say whatever is expedient. Here are some excerpts.

Overall Registration Policies

"...There is also an increased risk of consumer confusion and cyber squatting if registrants are not given the option of registering in the alternative domain at the point of registration...."

And a Question they ask on this:

5) If we adopt option 3 what steps could Nominet take to avoid cyber squatters registering in the alternative registry befor the original registrant has a chance to do so?

Another thing. Our consultation was full of loaded questions and we had no chance of considering the form before completing it. Whereas the Welsh had the opportunity of downloading it and emailing it back. Just another co-incidence? or another blatant discrimination.

http://www.domainforwales.org.uk/content/have-your-say

What a shabby and underhand stunt the .uk proposal is turning out to be. It's about time the media big boys got involved in this.

 

[Stephen]

.uk v .wales

I've just downloaded the Welsh consultation form. I'm staggered by the duplicity of Nominet. And I think the way they have worded the .wales consultation compared with the .co.uk consultation opens up Nominet to the charge of discrimination against existing .co.uk registrants. .....

There is more than the consultation form itself:

Consider which .uk or .wales had the best of:

• The Nominet timescales for communication and introduction
• Economic Study report
• Published studies, if look at ICANN appendix
• No security to remove barrier for entry
• No compulsory DNSSEC
• Lower cost (but not totally sure on this yet!)
• Chair person of Nominet getting involved
• Seperate website to promote
• No need for a location address as registrant
• Years of planning and lobbying
• Structure of options to prevent cybersquatting
• Added own specific expert advisory group

I would urge all to look at the seperate .wales thread as Nominet should at the very least more transparent at what they are doing.

Or before long we will be facing the introduction of .England or .Eng with no rights as .co.uk owners, if we don't make a stand.

 

[viceroy]

Radio Advert

What the hell is going on with this lot? I've just heard a radio advert for agreatplacetobe.co.uk by Nominet on Lincs fm this morning. The wording of the advert would make a lot of subscribers to this thread livid I'm sure...

 

[aZooZa]

What the hell is going on with this lot? I've just heard a radio advert for agreatplacetobe.co.uk by Nominet on Lincs fm this morning. The wording of the advert would make a lot of subscribers to this thread livid I'm sure...

Maybe someone could follow this up with the station's news desk.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2