.UK Announced

[Hazel Pegg]

My own view is that .net.uk is the solution.

As in applying the security & registrant verification proposals to .net.uk and marketing that as the 'secure' domain extension?

 

[aZooZa]

As in applying the security & registrant verification proposals to .net.uk and marketing that as the 'secure' domain extension?

The 'security' waffle from Nominet is a complete red herring in my opinion. It's not needed or wanted. DNSSec is already available if people want to go down that route, as is malware scanning and all the rest of the cobblers. There are plenty of third-party entrepreneurs out there who can design security seals and do identity vetting. I speak from experience on this.

What's currently broken that needs fixing, other than Nominet's opportunist greed? No; .net.uk won't work for them because it won't meet the expectations of their coffer-fillers.

 

[anthony]

You said and I quote
" I have offered £x,xxx to high £1x,xxx for at least 4 of them over the years, and have been unsuccessful in getting any"

And I have already said these were less than the initial asking prices. Perhaps I should have clarified, these were counter offers based on initial enquiries, with the domainers in question all setting the initial bar!

When I look back now, they would all have come under the 'buy in haste & repent at leisure' category of purchases, and it underpins my belief that domainers should never be given grandfather rights to their .co.uk portfolios.

Having said that, Nominet shouldn't make the mistake of conducting auctions this time around, they'll forever be know as the biggest money grabbing 'domainer' in UK history if they're not careful!

 

[Hazel Pegg]

it underpins my belief that domainers should never be given grandfather rights to their .co.uk portfolios.

We agree on something then

 

[anthony]

We agree on something then

I know, shocking! Further, I find myself agreeing with Nominet on this point too, not that they ever listened to me (or my then lawyer) in the past!!

 

[GreyWing]

I know, shocking! Further, I find myself agreeing with Nominet on this point too, not that they ever listened to me (or my then lawyer) in the past!!

That's fine but do what Nominet has never been able to do, that is define to me what a domainer is and when someone stops having multiple on line businesses and is then a domainer.

 

[anthony]

That's fine but do what Nominet has never been able to do, that is define to me what a domainer is and when someone stops having multiple on line businesses and is then a domainer.

Judging by that rather loaded question, do you not think there is any such thing as a domainer then?

 

[GreyWing]

Judging by that rather loaded question, do you not think there is any such thing as a domainer then?

See you can't answer it can you? No need to feel stupid. I haven't heard anyone answer it in 5 years, that is what is wrong with your policy.

 

[GreyWing]

The 'security' waffle from Nominet is a complete red herring in my opinion. It's not needed or wanted.

Spot on mate, take the payday loan garbage at the moment. 1000 hacked sites pointing to one site which is fine. But those that use the clean site without malware are still giving their details to hackers.

Just one example

 

[anthony]

See you can't answer it can you? No need to feel stupid. I haven't heard anyone answer it in 5 years, that is what is wrong with your policy.

I don't have a policy GW, and I certainly don't feel stupid either. If a person's objective is to register domain names primarily to sell rather than use, then he is a domainer. It may not be your definition, but it is mine.

So I will ask again, do you think there is no such thing as a domainer then?

 

[GreyWing]

it underpins my belief that domainers should never be given grandfather rights to their .co.uk portfolios.

I don't have a policy GW, and I certainly don't feel stupid either. If a person's objective is to register domain names primarily to sell rather than use, then he is a domainer. It may not be your definition, but it is mine.

But your quote above says that it is your belief / proposal / policy let's not do semantics here. I'm saying to you it is impossible to implement your idea because it is impossible to quantify the difference between a domainer and someone that has multiple online businesses.

If you can't quantify or come up with rules for it. How can you propose it or tell people how it works! You say if a person's objective is to register domains primarily to sell than use. How on Earth does Nominet verify that?

So I will ask again, do you think there is no such thing as a domainer then?

This is getting daft, I asked you when someone stops having multiple online businesses and becomes a domainer and you ask me if I think domainers exist? I wouldn't have used them in the question if I didn't think they existed would I?

 

[namealot]

Judging by that rather loaded question, do you not think there is any such thing as a domainer then?

For co.uk "domainer" = nominets bitch....

 

[anthony]

You say:

...I'm saying to you it is impossible to implement your idea because it is impossible to quantify the difference between a domainer and someone that has multiple online businesses...

But then you say:

...you ask me if I think domainers exist? I wouldn't have used them in the question if I didn't think they existed would I?

Well then having waited for 5 years for Nominet to tell you, you should be in a great position to tell us all what a domainer is, as you clearly belief they do exist from what you have said above. You asked me for my description of a domainer, I gave you one. So what is your description of a domainer GW, or are you going to dodge the question?


On a separate note, I really hope this time you will see this fight through, I recall your 'ebout.co.uk' site, which started out with the following fighting statement (see http://web.archive.org/):

"I feel it’s right that I let others know about my concerns with the way Nominet is being run and what I believe is the future for this organisation. The concerns I have surround the current board including; Bob Gilbert, Lesley Cowley and Gordon Dick. The conduct and character of these individuals I openly call into question. I openly ask for Department Manager Emily Taylor to answer some serious questions regarding her conduct."

Yet it fizzled out when you ended up actually meeting some of the board members (Bob I seem to recall, but I'm not going to crawl through past posts to check who).

Finally for now, if you are going to highlight current .co.uk registrants on your 'that' site who will lose out when .uk comes along, I'd suggest you do it fully balanced, otherwise you'll be making it piss easy for Nominet to pick up on your mistakes. Take 'driving.co.uk', if you scratch below the surface, you'll notice that the TM holder 'Driving Magazine Ltd' would be more than justified in arguing for driving.uk if it comes along, they are the same people who run this business too:
http://www.driving.org/

 

[Stephen]

As in applying the security & registrant verification proposals to .net.uk and marketing that as the 'secure' domain extension?

I personally see the security as a seperate issue.

I would not like to see any 1 main uk tld with more security than the rest as it devalues the rest. The security should be looked at across the whole of the uk namespace.

Plus once it is known what are the security and likely to be future updates whether it should be compulsory or not.

 

[Hazel Pegg]

I would not like to see any 1 main uk tld with more security than the rest as it devalues the rest. The security should be looked at across the whole of the uk namespace.

Is there any reason why Nominet (or some other body) couldn't issue a 'kite mark' to websites that meet whatever criteria are set? Nominet are proposing that by making security compulsory for the new .uk then Joe Public will know that .uk can be trusted. I'd suggest that Joe Public is more familiar with 'kite marks' such as ABTA or IATA than he is with the relevance of any particular domain name extension.

 

[Hazel Pegg]

define to me what a domainer is and when someone stops having multiple on line businesses and is then a domainer.

If those multiple online businesses are PPC sites then you are a domainer.

If those multiple domain names are parked with SEDO (or similar) then you are a domainer.

If those multiple online businesses are listed as For Sale with SEDO (or similar) then you are a domainer.

If you sell domain names with no associated website at more than cost price plus a bit extra for your time then you are a domainer.

 

[Edwin]

Is there any reason why Nominet (or some other body) couldn't issue a 'kite mark' to websites that meet whatever criteria are set? Nominet are proposing that by making security compulsory for the new .uk then Joe Public will know that .uk can be trusted. I'd suggest that Joe Public is more familiar with 'kite marks' such as ABTA or IATA than he is with the relevance of any particular domain name extension.

That's what I proposed in both round tables I was in: decouple the security "package" from .uk and offer it as an extra to ANY business under ANY domain extension that Nominet manages.

Those who applied for it (and passed the criteria for verification, etc.) would receive a trustmark.

I also made some suggestions about how Nominet could proactively promote that trustmark through partners in a win-win relationship, but I won't repeat them here since AFAIK nobody's doing what I proposed to them yet and I don't want to take that opportunity off the table for Nominet. If you happened to be in the room at the time I'd be grateful if you could do likewise. Thanks.

Benefits:
- Genuinely helps improve security across the entire UK web space (If it takes off and becomes popular, more and more businesses will need to get it to maintain parity with their competitors. If not, well that's very telling...)
- Keeps the .uk price on parity with other extensions
- Greatly simplifies the rollout of .uk and its implementation for registrars (just a case of "who gets what" but no extra hurdles to jump through)
- Doesn't penalise smaller registrars, who will still be able to sell .uk (to date, Nominet has treated registrars of all sizes as equals)
- Trustmark would be more meaningful (because businesses requested it, it shows which ones are taking security considerations most seriously)
- Doesn't give consumers a false sense of security about .uk
- Lends itself to being improved over time (more restrictions, more types of scan, more features etc.) whereas changes to a compulsory system would just annoy the 99% of businesses that don't care about it.
- Can be priced higher than £20 (Symantec Safe Site for instance costs US$29/month or US$299/year)
- Registrars have a new, premium product to sell to ALL their client base

Downside:
- Less of a windfall for Nominet from .uk
- Registrars no longer have a "premium" domain extension to mark up
- May not see much if any take-up

 

[foz]

A Trustmark of any kind can be easily copied by wrong doers.

The security points proposed in the consultation are merely their as a marketing package in the hopes lay people will swallow the whole direct.uk release as the next best thing.

 

[Hazel Pegg]

A Trustmark of any kind can be easily copied by wrong doers.

True. But if the Trustmark links to the Nominet website where a list of Trustmark holders is kept?

 

[foz]

True. But if the Trustmark links to the Nominet website where a list of Trustmark holders is kept?

SSL certificates have this. It does not circumvent wrong doing.