As the proposal stands, A UK address will suffice.
Membership is FREE, giving all registered users unlimited access to every Acorn Domains feature, resource, and tool! Optional membership upgrades unlock exclusive benefits like profile signatures with links, banner placements, appearances in the weekly newsletter, and much more - customized to your membership level!
.UK Announced
- Thread starter Marcoose
- Start date
As the proposal stands, A UK address will suffice.
7000 domains. If the owner were entitled to all competitor .uk's without auction it's £140,000 per annum at wholesale prices, at retail maybe £250,000.
The better the nominet customer the bigger the hit.
Nominet auctioning domains encourage high values and higher values encourage savvy investors and prices are then beyond the very people that nominet claim to represent, so where will this all be 10 years down the road ?
Nominet Corporation.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 13
Nominet roundtable 2 - 7th November (session 1)
Another interesting session at Nominet, with trademark holders and businesses respresentitives present.
There was a strong sense that the security was a red herring and mixed feelings about whether it should be available at all but no real support for a compulsory bundle.
Paul Keating and Edwin amongst others added lots of valid points, in the main against the proposal "as is" and their was a general lack of support from even trademark holder representatives for .uk at all.
Nominet would not disclose how much they expected to raise from the launch of .uk or how many .uk domains they thought would register, which created a bit of untrust towards Nominet motives.
Nominet stated they would make public the results of these round table discussions (but no video) plus they would look at the matter of publishing all the submissions received as part of their conclusion.
I hope to return tomorrow to London for the open session, as due to the 2 sessions today Nominet staff were not available for extra questions.
Rgds
Stephen
Another interesting session at Nominet, with trademark holders and businesses respresentitives present.
There was a strong sense that the security was a red herring and mixed feelings about whether it should be available at all but no real support for a compulsory bundle.
Paul Keating and Edwin amongst others added lots of valid points, in the main against the proposal "as is" and their was a general lack of support from even trademark holder representatives for .uk at all.
Nominet would not disclose how much they expected to raise from the launch of .uk or how many .uk domains they thought would register, which created a bit of untrust towards Nominet motives.
Nominet stated they would make public the results of these round table discussions (but no video) plus they would look at the matter of publishing all the submissions received as part of their conclusion.
I hope to return tomorrow to London for the open session, as due to the 2 sessions today Nominet staff were not available for extra questions.
Rgds
Stephen
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Posts
- 1,760
- Reaction score
- 47
Keep up the good work Stephen.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 13
Nominet roundtable 2 - 7th November (session 1)
It was interesting to see the BBC in house trademark lawyer write down notes furiously after Edwin's revelation that the BBC may not get its .uk.
It was asked would there be an exception for the BBC and others but Nominet stated it was only a consultation and nothing was decided.
It was also stressed that businesses would be the target for .uk domain but anybody could register a .uk for any purpose.
On trademark’s; after yesterday’s revelation that eu trademarks and trademarks from most western countries (including USA, australia, NZ etc) would count under reciprocal agreements, Nominet stated it was likely they would have to show it was active and further that it was active in the uk but that proof was not defined and it may be sufficient that they had a visitor from the uk to their website?
There was a blogger present who made lots of notes but sorry did not catch his name or website but if anybody see's it maybe they could link to it from this thread.
Rgds
Stephen
It was interesting to see the BBC in house trademark lawyer write down notes furiously after Edwin's revelation that the BBC may not get its .uk.
It was asked would there be an exception for the BBC and others but Nominet stated it was only a consultation and nothing was decided.
It was also stressed that businesses would be the target for .uk domain but anybody could register a .uk for any purpose.
On trademark’s; after yesterday’s revelation that eu trademarks and trademarks from most western countries (including USA, australia, NZ etc) would count under reciprocal agreements, Nominet stated it was likely they would have to show it was active and further that it was active in the uk but that proof was not defined and it may be sufficient that they had a visitor from the uk to their website?
There was a blogger present who made lots of notes but sorry did not catch his name or website but if anybody see's it maybe they could link to it from this thread.
Rgds
Stephen
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Posts
- 1,760
- Reaction score
- 47
Keep going mate. You gotta fight the power!
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 13
Nominet feedback
Thanks for all your comments and encouragement. We are all in this together.
My aim is to show that Nominet should look after the interests of its major stakeholder, namely .co.uk owners and that the distribution proposed of .uk is totally wrong and the only logical final conclusion due to all issues is the pairing of ownership of the .uk to the equivalent .co.uk domain.
In the immortal words of “Highlander” there can only be ONE!
In creating the single ownership of the same .uk and .co.uk they are also assisting the wider stakeholders and the uk consumer.
My second fundamental objective is to show why the proposed security should not be a compulsory bundle and that it is currently a Trojan horse to get acceptance of .uk and fulfil an agenda that they have failed to achieve via persuasion.
Most of the points I have made to Nominet have been critical of the proposal, today I hope to conclude this process on showing why they need to change but then move on to positive ideas of how the uk namespace may get developed and how security and trust of the uk namespace can be improved for customers and hence suppliers.
Now off to Nominet meeting number 3.
Rgds
Stephen
Thanks for all your comments and encouragement. We are all in this together.
My aim is to show that Nominet should look after the interests of its major stakeholder, namely .co.uk owners and that the distribution proposed of .uk is totally wrong and the only logical final conclusion due to all issues is the pairing of ownership of the .uk to the equivalent .co.uk domain.
In the immortal words of “Highlander” there can only be ONE!
In creating the single ownership of the same .uk and .co.uk they are also assisting the wider stakeholders and the uk consumer.
My second fundamental objective is to show why the proposed security should not be a compulsory bundle and that it is currently a Trojan horse to get acceptance of .uk and fulfil an agenda that they have failed to achieve via persuasion.
Most of the points I have made to Nominet have been critical of the proposal, today I hope to conclude this process on showing why they need to change but then move on to positive ideas of how the uk namespace may get developed and how security and trust of the uk namespace can be improved for customers and hence suppliers.
Now off to Nominet meeting number 3.
Rgds
Stephen
Webcast for Registrars on the 21st, register your interest http://www.keysurvey.co.uk/votingmodule/s180/f/463488/d90a/
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 13
Nominet 8th November open day
Third day at Nominet – it seemed like all the domain community descended (well more than 10 prominent domainers) arrived at this Nominet open day event.
My views where that most of the Nominet staff have accepted the proposal will not get finalized in its current form and may not happen at all. I only met 1 Nominet staff that was in denial and stated they had received support for the proposal.
All the Nominet staff present could not be more helpful and accommodating.
I have requested that they consider providing an interim update as the process will shortly be 50% complete, of what alternative proposals both on the distribution of the .uk and bundling of security are being considered but nobody would commit to making that a promise.
Some answers received from questions that you may find interesting;
Q. How much money is expected to be raised from .uk? / How many .uk domain likely to be registered (in each stage) / How many current domains will to be not renewed?
A. Nominet are not able / willing to provide that information (but still following up)
Q. Who do you regard as Nominet stakeholders?
A .co.uk holders are important. Then several other stakeholders such as registers, gov, uk internet users, interestingly trademark holders were not mentioned and they get the main benefits (go figure!).
Q Any plans for .gb
A Nominet does not own rights and has no intention to do so.
Q Has Nominet protected .eng etc if uk breaks up, if Scotland leave
A No
Q. What issues / problems would pairing .co.uk with .uk
A No are not considering that option so have not looked into it. (I did ask that they do look into it) and consider this as an alternative solution)
Q Expiring domains consultation has finished but would Nominet look at issues raised in this consultation?
A Yes although report has gone to Directors to consider but their may be merit in looking at trademark registering interest when it is expiring.
Q Has Nominet received external legal opinion on the proposal?
A No.
Q Has Nominet released if it gets it wrong and law suits for loss or upheld it would bankrupt Nominet
A Didn’t get to ask this! (as the legal / allocation desk was always full of domainers!)
Q Why have Nominet not contacted all registrants about the proposal?
A Not able to, due to Data protection act. NOTE this would also stop Nominet from notifying all current owners of the 10,000,000 domains, that if this goes ahead they would loss there right (if they have any) to .uk, if they do not act. Also any unilateral action or marketing may fall on deaf ears after so many china domain scams and so many new tld’s in the news!
Q Can we have breakdown of £20 .uk cost?
A No. Although in discussion it was conceded the majority would be for address verification
Q Has the partner been chosen to supply malware protection
A No, it has not been decided which approach to use.
Q. Would you consider changing use of .net.uk to provide extra domains for bloggers, email accounts (as .me never seems to get used) etc.
A. Yes it might be considered as a underutilized resource.
Q. Have Nominet considered changing the law to change original t & c’s of current domain holders?
A. No
There was lots more discussion on how Nominet may reach its goals in different ways and it was very nice to see their enthusiasm for some alternative thinking on Nominet’s role in making the uk namespace more secure and adding some more trust to the uk brand.
My advice would be spread the word of the issues and the various threads and sites like that.co.uk and Edwin’s pivotal report at mydomainnames.co.uk but contact Nominet with your views and consider asking them to provide interim update on the feedback!
Rgds
Stephen
Third day at Nominet – it seemed like all the domain community descended (well more than 10 prominent domainers) arrived at this Nominet open day event.
My views where that most of the Nominet staff have accepted the proposal will not get finalized in its current form and may not happen at all. I only met 1 Nominet staff that was in denial and stated they had received support for the proposal.
All the Nominet staff present could not be more helpful and accommodating.
I have requested that they consider providing an interim update as the process will shortly be 50% complete, of what alternative proposals both on the distribution of the .uk and bundling of security are being considered but nobody would commit to making that a promise.
Some answers received from questions that you may find interesting;
Q. How much money is expected to be raised from .uk? / How many .uk domain likely to be registered (in each stage) / How many current domains will to be not renewed?
A. Nominet are not able / willing to provide that information (but still following up)
Q. Who do you regard as Nominet stakeholders?
A .co.uk holders are important. Then several other stakeholders such as registers, gov, uk internet users, interestingly trademark holders were not mentioned and they get the main benefits (go figure!).
Q Any plans for .gb
A Nominet does not own rights and has no intention to do so.
Q Has Nominet protected .eng etc if uk breaks up, if Scotland leave
A No
Q. What issues / problems would pairing .co.uk with .uk
A No are not considering that option so have not looked into it. (I did ask that they do look into it) and consider this as an alternative solution)
Q Expiring domains consultation has finished but would Nominet look at issues raised in this consultation?
A Yes although report has gone to Directors to consider but their may be merit in looking at trademark registering interest when it is expiring.
Q Has Nominet received external legal opinion on the proposal?
A No.
Q Has Nominet released if it gets it wrong and law suits for loss or upheld it would bankrupt Nominet
A Didn’t get to ask this! (as the legal / allocation desk was always full of domainers!)
Q Why have Nominet not contacted all registrants about the proposal?
A Not able to, due to Data protection act. NOTE this would also stop Nominet from notifying all current owners of the 10,000,000 domains, that if this goes ahead they would loss there right (if they have any) to .uk, if they do not act. Also any unilateral action or marketing may fall on deaf ears after so many china domain scams and so many new tld’s in the news!
Q Can we have breakdown of £20 .uk cost?
A No. Although in discussion it was conceded the majority would be for address verification
Q Has the partner been chosen to supply malware protection
A No, it has not been decided which approach to use.
Q. Would you consider changing use of .net.uk to provide extra domains for bloggers, email accounts (as .me never seems to get used) etc.
A. Yes it might be considered as a underutilized resource.
Q. Have Nominet considered changing the law to change original t & c’s of current domain holders?
A. No
There was lots more discussion on how Nominet may reach its goals in different ways and it was very nice to see their enthusiasm for some alternative thinking on Nominet’s role in making the uk namespace more secure and adding some more trust to the uk brand.
My advice would be spread the word of the issues and the various threads and sites like that.co.uk and Edwin’s pivotal report at mydomainnames.co.uk but contact Nominet with your views and consider asking them to provide interim update on the feedback!
Rgds
Stephen
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2005
- Posts
- 9,729
- Reaction score
- 1,311
Another great summary. Given that I've only just reached the train to go home for the first time in 3 days I don't have anything to add at this minute, but I will when something occurs to me. Thanks for the effort in writing all this up so that others can share!
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 13
Thanks and I look forward to reading posts from the many Acorn members present as there were some heated and frank discussions going on all over the place today!
If today didn't change their minds on top of the previous 2 days barage I don't know what will!
Rgds
Stephen
p.s. Edwin, I did check that Nominet have added (and read) your fine report to their official submissions
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Posts
- 437
- Reaction score
- 11
Stephen,
Many thanks to you, Edwin and others for all that you are doing.
I am confused by Nominet's DPA argument for lack of communication, although I appreciate their unease about confusion with scams.
From a DPA perspective, it feels that :
- if one buys into their argument, a crude "if registrant_type <> individual then send_ email" would easily avoid use of personal data about individuals in their own right and would still get a near-perfect hit rate for the entity types that are likely to own vulnerable intellectual property (eg companies with established names) : any "people" who are contacted using contact data under this approach would implicitly be being contacted ex officio in their role as a sole trader, director/departmental/functional role within a company/charity, etc rather than as a discrete DPA-protected personal individual entity
- a crude mailshot to offer the equivalent direct .uk name for sale would clearly be abusive marketing, but I do not see the same argument applying to communication up front about a consultation exercise : indeed, the overarching DPA principle of "fairness" suggests that failure to engage personal (and, intuitively, non-personal) registrants in the consultation exercise could be deemed negligent as they would remain blind to the jeopardy that their existing IP faces
As for the related topic of data quality, DPA principle 4 suggests that doing an occasional audit of existing registrant details is both reasonable and prudent to ensure Nominet are "Keeping personal data accurate and up to date", and I am sure I get occasional ICANN-driven emails from my registrar for my .coms to nudge me to check I am correctly defined. Building on that, I am sure there are many alleged "individual" registrants who should be, as a minimum, sole traders : personally, having chosen to jump through various hoops, I am all in favour of greater transparency about whether someone really is a sole trader rather than just an individual who truly only dabbles occasionally.
So, in summary, I don't see why they are apparently using the DPA as an excuse for failure to consult over the proposed changes. In addition, it feels like a positive argument in favour of an aspect of the overall proposal to ensure high data quality.
Regards, David
Nice work guys. Edwin, you've hit the nail on the head, Nominet was very nice, accommodating and weren't pushy. Saying this, they did stress that these are consultative meetings and as such one can't fight for or against a policy that's at this stage in the process. Yesterday afternoons' session was poorly attended in my view, (there was room for you after all, Edwin!).
I'll add some more points:
Q. Will every submission be made available for stakeholder perusal?
A. No, you'll just have to trust us and the process.
Q. As a registered holder of an uncontested .co.uk (commercial sphere) name for more than 5 years why would one not be allowed to participate in the registered rights allocation phase (why could this scenario not be viewed as 'registered rights')?
A. We will look into this where applicable.
Q. Who'll decide on the validity of tm claims to any given name?
A. It'll have to be some sort of clearing house/ process.
The bundling of the security features was discussed at length and the businesses represented, noted that they'd not be happy to foot the bill as a direct result of them acquiring the .uk. I think everyone there concluded that it was a bit of a red herring and/or shortcut considering the dismal uptake of Nominets' current DNSSec offering.
Allocation was also discussed at length with the general consensus that there should be a hierarchical release but Nominet were loath to agree that other extensions (.me.uk, .org.uk, etc.) should be second to .co.uk.
It seemed that most of the same questions had been asked before and they were always quick to note that the proposal had not been finalised. They would not comment on whether the consultation period would be extended.
I'll add some more points:
Q. Will every submission be made available for stakeholder perusal?
A. No, you'll just have to trust us and the process.
Q. As a registered holder of an uncontested .co.uk (commercial sphere) name for more than 5 years why would one not be allowed to participate in the registered rights allocation phase (why could this scenario not be viewed as 'registered rights')?
A. We will look into this where applicable.
Q. Who'll decide on the validity of tm claims to any given name?
A. It'll have to be some sort of clearing house/ process.
The bundling of the security features was discussed at length and the businesses represented, noted that they'd not be happy to foot the bill as a direct result of them acquiring the .uk. I think everyone there concluded that it was a bit of a red herring and/or shortcut considering the dismal uptake of Nominets' current DNSSec offering.
Allocation was also discussed at length with the general consensus that there should be a hierarchical release but Nominet were loath to agree that other extensions (.me.uk, .org.uk, etc.) should be second to .co.uk.
It seemed that most of the same questions had been asked before and they were always quick to note that the proposal had not been finalised. They would not comment on whether the consultation period would be extended.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 13
Publish the detail of the responses
I have sent an email to Nominet to ask for clarification, as in a previous conversation although they have stated the intention is to supply a summary only but when pushed on it, I recall them stating they would look at the possiblity but not sure if they were just being helpful or if it would be seriously considered.
It was mentioned about withholding contact details of the respondants.
Anyway have asked Nominet for clarification and will post when I receive a response.
Rgds
Stephen
I have sent an email to Nominet to ask for clarification, as in a previous conversation although they have stated the intention is to supply a summary only but when pushed on it, I recall them stating they would look at the possiblity but not sure if they were just being helpful or if it would be seriously considered.
It was mentioned about withholding contact details of the respondants.
Anyway have asked Nominet for clarification and will post when I receive a response.
Rgds
Stephen
Similar threads
The Rule #1
Do not insult any other member. Be polite and do business. Thank you!
Premium Members
Upcoming events
-
Jun 252025
-
Sep 12025Domain Summit Europe - London 2025September 1-3, 2025
Domain Forum Friends
Our Mods' Businesses
There are no messages in the current room.