.UK Announced

[bulkcorn]

Interesting.

Picked this up from a blog and hadn't seen it raised on here and if it was I missed it.

someone could register

lloydstsbco.uk
aaispco.uk
hmrcgov.uk, etc, etc.

This could be a phishers' paradise if it goes through

They may decide to 'police' .uk registrations to prevent such registrations. Wonder what it would cost to do this, and who would bear the cost!

They know how much confusion the release will cause but they seem to be deliberately ignoring the risks and not informing the public about it. They just need to burn this direct.uk hat or award to .co.uk owners!

 

[Marcoose]

They may decide to 'police' .uk registrations to prevent such registrations. Wonder what it would cost to do this, and who would bear the cost!

They know how much confusion the release will cause but they seem to be deliberately ignoring the risks and not informing the public about it. They just need to burn this direct.uk hat or award to .co.uk owners!

Awarding .uk to .co.uk holders isn't the issue in question here though. It's that people with name.co.uk might feel forced to register nameco.uk as well as name.uk (if given the chance) to protect their brand/emails. What if you've got 10, 20, 30+ websites using .co.uk?

 

[websaway]

Awarding .uk to .co.uk holders isn't the issue in question here though. It's that people with name.co.uk might feel forced to register nameco.uk as well as name.uk (if given the chance) to protect their brand/emails. What if you've got 10, 20, 30+ websites using .co.uk?

You might talk marcoose, you started all this.

 

[bulkcorn]

Awarding .uk to .co.uk holders isn't the issue in question here though. It's that people with name.co.uk might feel forced to register nameco.uk as well as name.uk (if given the chance) to protect their brand/emails. What if you've got 10, 20, 30+ websites using .co.uk?

Sorry, I missed the point of the whole .uk matter! :lol:

 

[Nigel]

The 'key stakeholders' consulted did not include any registrars

Just heard back from Eleanor Bradley in connection with the FOI release which showed 'key stakeholders' were consulted about direct.uk back in August 2012. She has confirmed that these were 'key external stakeholders such as government' and did not include any registrars. Here's the important paragraph from her email to me:


"As you would expect, we did consider very carefully the ramifications of introducing direct.uk that included input from some key external stakeholders such as government. However we did not do this in public for obvious reasons prior to the consultation launch, and similarly we do not intend to provide details of who was contacted, but I hope it will reassure you to know that no registrars were sent the consultation in advance."

 

[RobM]

So registrars weren't consulted? Well I feel reassured.

 

[GreyWing]

Bit odd that she wouldn't just reveal who they actually were rather than who they were not. I do believe her when she says no registrars were consulted but just interested, not suspicious, who these other key stake holders would be. If it were ICANN etc then they should just come out and say so. Keeping things secret just puts a iffy smell over things when there is probably nothing to be ashamed of in the first place.

 

[Marcoose]

You might talk marcoose, you started all this.

I've got the mince pies of a 50 year old and had been expecting the dreaded email for months. The timing was kinda spooky though.

 

[Marcoose]

Just heard back from Eleanor Bradley in connection with the FOI release which showed 'key stakeholders' were consulted about direct.uk back in August 2012. She has confirmed that these were 'key external stakeholders such as government' and did not include any registrars. Here's the important paragraph from her email to me:


"As you would expect, we did consider very carefully the ramifications of introducing direct.uk that included input from some key external stakeholders such as government. However we did not do this in public for obvious reasons prior to the consultation launch, and similarly we do not intend to provide details of who was contacted, but I hope it will reassure you to know that no registrars were sent the consultation in advance."

Can we believe anything that comes out of that office?

 

[Brassneck]

Just heard back from Eleanor Bradley in connection with the FOI release which showed 'key stakeholders' were consulted about direct.uk back in August 2012. She has confirmed that these were 'key external stakeholders such as government' and did not include any registrars. Here's the important paragraph from her email to me:


"As you would expect, we did consider very carefully the ramifications of introducing direct.uk that included input from some key external stakeholders such as government. However we did not do this in public for obvious reasons prior to the consultation launch, and similarly we do not intend to provide details of who was contacted, but I hope it will reassure you to know that no registrars were sent the consultation in advance."

August is a terrible time to run any kind of consultative process - did it continue for a while? It's pretty much accepted that many key decision makers are on holiday for much of the month so you would miss a lot of valuable input. Likewise you wouldn't run it across Christmas if you wanted sensible input.

Stephen

 

[TinkyWinky]

August is a terrible time to run any kind of consultative process - Likewise you wouldn't run it across Christmas if you wanted sensible input.

And there's the raison d'être why no one trusts 6 men and a dog (a disservice to dogs - I apologise!) running this consultation process.

This corum decided the rules they wanted, in order to fit the decision they wanted... despite still not being able to supply even one PROPER reason why this is essential for the webspace.

What a watse of everyone's time and money the whole process has been.

The rightful path and choice is actually the elephant in the room - no one wants or needs this - apart from the Nom board.

 

[anthony]

"...we did consider very carefully the ramifications of introducing direct.uk that included input from some key external stakeholders such as government. However we did not do this in public for obvious reasons prior to the consultation launch"

So exactly what were those 'obvious reasons'?

If members we're not viewed as key stakeholders then over such a big issue, then they'll never be viewed as such over any more trivial matters. The statement is ridiculous, what has been the difference regarding the end effect, whether or not they kept it under their hat?

 

[Jamie101]

Getting quiet here.

Would I be right in saying that they'll come to a decision tomorrow but we won't know about what decision they made for a week or two?

 

[jimmc]

I thought registrars here were going to take them to task. What happened to the EGM???

 

[GreyWing]

I thought registrars here were going to take them to task. What happened to the EGM???

Still there mate, but we decided we can't call it until we know what they are going to do. We felt we would look pretty daft putting questions to a vote at the EGM if they don't go ahead with it.

Plus there maybe other action that means that a EGM isn't necessary. But yep it is there ready and waiting once things are decided.

 

[Stephen]

26th February 2013

Getting quiet here.
Would I be right in saying that they'll come to a decision tomorrow but we won't know about what decision they made for a week or two?

Yes, board meeting on 26th February 2013, in the past it has taken 2 weeks to publish the minutes.

However Nominet have stated at the highest level that they understand the significance of .uk and intend to speed up the process but they have not indicated by what.

It is possible that they will release the Report on the .uk Consultation straight after the board have discussed it but it would make more sense to announce the direction Nominet are going to follow about .uk at the same time.

We will just have to be patient to see how the story unfolds.

P.S. Will admin add new thread on .uk part 2?

 

[GreyWing]

I imagine leaks will happen mate, they won't want the news coming out via leaks so it will be out asap in my opinion. 2-3 days tops is the most secrecy they can hope to achieve. They don't have a good track record over leaks.

 

[Jamie101]

Interesting, thanks for the info guys.

All I can say is if this does go ahead I've probably made a big mistake spending a decent amount of money (for me) on a .co.uk.

 

[Rob_F]

I'm fairly sure I read in one of the articles linked to via this thread, that someone from Nom stated a summery would be published on the 26th.

- Rob

 

[Stephen]

What happens next?

I'm fairly sure I read in one of the articles linked to via this thread, that someone from Nom stated a summery would be published on the 26th.
- Rob

Dont recall seeing that but there is this on the Nominet website:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest/directuk-consultation-closes-today

What happens next?

The .uk Policy Secretariat will now examine the consultation feedback and prepare a summary. This will be considered by the Nominet Board at their meeting on the 26 February and published on the Nominet website.

Having reviewed the feedback, the Board will then consider the best way forward. This may take one of several possible routes to an eventual product, such as a direct.uk product with a different set of features, or a different release process. There is also the possibility that we may decide to seek further stakeholder views or not go ahead with direct.uk at all.

The Board will communicate the next steps in the official communiqué following the February meeting.