.UK Announced

[Bailey]

Nice to see this thread has started to really focus on the "money-side" to "real-world" businesses in particular

 

[Stephen]

Idn ?

OK, silly question time, why would we need IDN, aren't all the English letters in the standard character set?

Yes I believe they are. The french etc have a few of those weird looking characters in the latin extended alphabet such as ệ

But mainly IDN is used for other language types such as Crylic, Japanese etc.

Dont know if the welsh use any?

I really dont think we should introduce IDN into the uk namespace, just so the main registrars can sell more uk domains. (another money point - Bailey!).

If Nominet really had a uk strategy then I could see the case for a third level domain (o' wait Nominet intend to get rid of all of them ) that may help uk businesses that trade goods and/or services overseas without diluting or confusing main uk extensions. So by launching .com.uk (for instance) for uk nbased business that trade outside uk, then it would be useful for commerical language purposes to have IDN.

 

[Stephen]

Nominet Research on .uk

Has anybody obtained from Nominet the original research material they undertook before they launched their .uk proposal?

I have asked a few times but not yet received anything but have not yet been given a definate "NO it will never be available".

Somebody kindly sent me details of the old Nominet website and was interested on the new ICANN launch, that Nominet gave snipets of research like ;

25 applications have been made by British brands, a recent Nominet survey amongst UK businesses also indicates that 41% were unaware of the changes

Also if they admit to 41% of people not knowing about ICANN new extensions, which I did see on the main news and magazines, I wonder how many people will be aware of the .uk introduction?

Another bit of the research snipets made about ICANN new gTlds's by Nominet, which I believe is relevant to the .uk proposal debate.

According to research commissioned by Nominet, 61% of British businesses with websites have no plans to buy any more domain names while one in five plan to keep their existing domains and buy additional ones.

 

[Stephen]

Nominet top 20 registrar meeting

Nice to see this thread has started to really focus on the "money-side" to "real-world" businesses in particular

Due to my posts on this thread. I have been provided with a few very interesting documents by pm and email.

I found it interesting that Nominet in it's normal recent meeting with the top 20 largest uk registrars, asked for feedback on the .uk proposal, as you would hope they would do.

The feedback was all the registrars wanted the .uk to be introduced, stating it would produce more business.

However the general conscious seemed to be, they didn't like either the way the .uk was allocated (although no total support for any one alternative) and they did not want the security features bundled.

If this is true, it begs the question, who did Nominet ask before launching the .uk proposal in the first place, if the biggest 20 uk registrars did not fully support the proposal?

I was not there, so if anybody could post a first hand account from that meeting, that would be very useful.

 

[foz]

I found it interesting that Nominet in it's normal recent meeting with the top 20 largest uk registrars, asked for feedback on the .uk proposal, as you would hope they would do.

The feedback was all the registrars wanted the .uk to be introduced, stating it would produce more business.

What date did this take place?

 

[Stephen]

Nominet Registrar meeting

What date did this take place?

Very importantly this meeting was following the release of the consultation paper and did not afford the 20 uk registrars in attendance any greater insight than that achieved at the roundtable.

The consultation was one of many points on the agenda, the rest of which ranged from a refresh on current adoption of Multi Year registrations to a very interesting presentation from the Nominet Trust.

 

[DarrenTSO]

Were you there Stephen?

 

[Stephen]

......
I don't accept that direct.uk is the best solution to the security problem because the reduction of three characters does nothing to inform Internet users that the domain name is any more secure than {.co|.org}.uk are. My latest thoughts are for launching .safe.uk along with mandatory security features because .safe.uk has a nice ring to it. It clearly informs the Internet user that there is something about this domain name, and the web site attached to it, that makes it safe to use. Launching direct.uk doesn't do that because the overall URL is reduced in length and nothing is added to provide security impact until the web site is visited and a trust mark is located. Putting yourdomain.safe.uk in the address bar provides that security impact in a way that yourdomain.uk does not. I prefer .safe.uk to .sec.uk and anything else I have considered for providing security impact because it isn't an abbreviation yet is still short and reads positively.

The creation of safe.uk with mandatory security features should not prevent registrants of domain names in other .uk extensions (e.g. co.uk and org.uk) from paying to obtain the trust mark if they wanted it. This proposed safe.uk extension would suit small businesses who wouldn't ordinarily be able to finance the large advertising and brand awareness spend require to build the kind of brand loyalty that large brands can build themselves in .co.uk and .com. The creation of safe.uk would likely remove most if not all allocation problems that direct.uk will have. It also doesn't block the second level, allowing for the creation of further third level extensions as has always been the case.

I do believe that your suggested solution is neat however I believe it would be very difficult to explain to web users; in that yourname.safe.co.uk is safe BUT also safe in the same way is those uk websites with a kitemark BUT it doesn't mean the other .co.uk and .org.uk's etc websites are always unsafe, also please read the small print for what we think is safe (which might not equate to what you mean is safe)!

From your idea, I do think Nominet should buy safe.co.uk and publisize Nominet buying a .co.uk domain in the secondary market, it may help repair some of the damage they have done with this proposal so far.

p.s. I dont own safe.co.uk (although I wish I did - maybe I'll get safe.uk for £20)

 

[Stephen]

Were you there Stephen?

No unfortunately I was not, as I stated in my original post ;

"I was not there, so if anybody could post a first hand account from that meeting, that would be very useful. "

Unfortunately my domain registrations don't put me in the top 2,000 uk registrars, never mind the top 20!

 

[Stephen]

Putting aside whether Nominet should acquire safe.co.uk from Steven Terence Jackson or safe.org.uk from Southampton Action For Employment (neither I consider mandatory acquisitions), I'd see safe.uk specifically marketed as a SLD that registrations within had undergone mandatory checks. I wouldn't expect safe.uk to usurp co.uk because it would be marketed towards specific ecommerce entities, namely small businesses rather than bigger brands. Many of those businesses apparently have concerns about being trusted and abandoned shopping carts. Nominet could start something unique with safe.uk and of course some of the extra security features could quite easily be sold as bolt ons to existing co.uk and org.uk domain names.

I feel safe.uk would be easier to explain to Internet user than direct.uk would. The "safe" SLD is a logical and neat indication of safety that opening direct.uk wouldn't have. Marketing campaigns promoting safe.uk's safety features would appear to be easier to produce than campaigns marketing direct.uk's security features. It is much easier to refer to "safe.uk" than it is to refer to ".uk" (i.e. direct.uk) because all .co.uk and .org.uk domain names obviously end in .uk but only domain names registered within the third level of safe.uk end with that. I am trying to imagine how direct.uk would distinguish itself easily and recognisably if it was being marketed to all. Any ideas I can think of rely on people understanding the elements that make up the domain in order to realise that domain names that go directly to .uk have undergone a certain number of additional security checks. With safe.uk the existence of "safe" is visual so is seen in any browser address bar and on any printed advertising. That makes it easier to refer to and obvious each time.

I wouldn't expect safe.uk to usurp .co.uk. Big brands wouldn't not need to use it because they're already considered safe and are happy with the domain names they have. This is an extension for small businesses that want to convey additional safety measures have been taken in respect of their Internet presence. It addresses a problem that Nominet believe exists, is only one character longer than org.uk, says what it is without being too long, doesn't prevent further SLDs from being created in the future under .uk and wouldn't have the same ridiculously complicated allocation problems (.me.uk didn't have allocation issues when it was launched). It's different to anything else on the market although I note that Amazon have applied for .safe as a gTLD).

Thanks. Just trying to raise some debate by asking;
1. Would you still do the kitmark / trustmark option as well for other .uk tld's?
2. Which security measures would you include?
3. Would the .safe.uk extension provide any real meaningful financial protection to the user or assurance the shopping cart actually works?
4. What happens in the future, for when the next big security issue arises, whatever it is and not everybody wants to ahead with new extra new security?
5. How can you reassure the public that .co.uk and .org.uk are not inherently unsafe?

Thanks for pointing out about the new .safe gTLD, I'm not sure if that would be a help or hinderance in .safe.uk possible acceptance?

 

[aZooZa]

5. How can you reassure the public that .co.uk and .org.uk are not inherently unsafe?

That's why that suggestion would never work. The instant perception is that .co.uk is inherently unsafe by simple association. Take the following example of normal human perception:

buy.fresh.fruit
buy.fruit

If .fruit was a TLD, and you were offered the choice of visiting either site to buy fruit, which one would you pick (pardon pun)? The implication is that 'buy.fruit' doesn't sell fresh fruit, isn't it?

 

[Stephen]

Invincible

Thanks for the answers.

rgds
Stephen

 

[WealdDomains]

As a little diversion, instead of safe.uk there's always .gb : Guaranteed Browsing with Genuine Businesses in Great Britain, including the true ISO3166 ring of confidence. (c) DC 2012.

Ah well, sorry for that interlude - now back to the serious stuff ...

 

[WealdDomains]

... and on that serious front, there is an interesting piece on the BBC website tonight about the concept of "confusingly similar" names : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20329998 - I realise it is not necessarily directly relevant to domain name suffixes, but it may be worth keeping an eye on that debate to gain an appreciation of the arguments on both sides

 

[Stephen]

Team .GB

As a little diversion, instead of safe.uk there's always .gb : Guaranteed Browsing with Genuine Businesses in Great Britain, including the true ISO3166 ring of confidence. (c) DC 2012.

Ah well, sorry for that interlude - now back to the serious stuff ...

I think after the London Olympics & Para Olympics great results for team GB, .gb should be used by uk based businesses that provide services and/or goods outside the uk and this tld would be IDN compatible and have a real discusion about what would help it make its way in the world and really help boost the uk economy on the world stage.

I did raise this at the Nominet round table, although Nominet does not control the tld .gb they are aware now who has the rights to it in the uk and it is only a phone call to the govt department that controls it, to get the ball rolling.

Lets hope if they do move .gb forward their planning, investigation, marketing research and proposal is much better thought out and complete than the .uk proposal!

 

[Edwin]

The security that Nominet is proposing isn't real security, so where/how it's implemented is irrelevant.

If .safe.uk is to exist at all it needs to be super-premium (eg £250 year) and the funds used for real security e.g physical inspection of premises, checks against various databases (Companies House, HMRC, electoral roll, credit rating agencies etc) plus evidenciary based verification (utilities bills, bank statements, copies of passport/driver's licence etc)

Bundle the above with better security features eg Nameservers can't be changed ie Nominet provide a/cname/mx records and therefore know 100% of what's happening with the domain. Outgoing emails could be scanned for malware/phishing links/viruses etc etc. With Nominet controlling the DNS it would be able to make changes at the page level to warn site visitors of any detected issues/dangers.

Basically, what level of algorithmic security could £100+ a year shared out to various 3rd parties actually provide (balance of fees would be spent on identity/address/registrant verification)

With enough layers in the security onion and enough failsafes, Nominet might even be able to take out some kind of business risk insurance that would protect users hitting .safe.uk domains for eg the first £500 of losses.

That's the only realistic way to look at something like this. A little tiny bit more safety (like Nominet's current proposal) will make everyone LESS safe because the relaxation in user attentiveness and self-policing will outweigh any security gains from the figleaf of security Nominet is proposing)

And no, I wouldn't make the above available on existing extensions. Even if only a few thousand businesses took up .safe.uk, if they included banks and other financial institutions it would make a material difference to the sum total safety of the *.uk namespace while not inconveniencing the 99% of businesses that don't care.

 

[Stephen]

Evolution or Revolution

The internet address system has evolved a little like this, for each established top uk commercial domain name;

http://82.98.86.175/myRequiredName.co.uk/home.html/

then​

http://www.myRequiredName.co.uk/home.html/

then​

http://www.myRequiredName.co.uk/home.html

then​

http://www.myRequiredName.co.uk/home

then​

www.myRequiredName.co.uk/home

then​

www.myRequiredName.co.uk/

then​

www.myRequiredName.co.uk

now​

myRequiredName.co.uk

Now we have a choice do we continue with Evolution of that primary uk commercial domain name and have;

myRequiredName.uk​

OR do we go for Revolution and introduce a new species as Nominet have proposed
and have 2 competing uk primary commercial domain names;

myRequiredName.uk​

myRequiredName.co.uk​

The newer .uk has added features ( security) and the older .co.uk will therefore be seen as inferior.

We all know one of these will die slowly and the other would prosper!

I wish, I could have set it to music and have a David Attenborough voice over. (but on limited budget)

 

[simondooner]

Confusingly Similar

For me “myRequiredName.co.uk” and “myRequiredName.uk” are too confusingly similar.

To introduce them into a UK business environment would cause widespread confusion both nationally and internationally for years to come. The fall-out would be disastrous for UK business and our economy.

The Government model to control confusion

The issue of confusion of this nature for UK business has already been dealt with very well by the Government in the naming rules for UK businesses.

See - The Company and Business Names (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2009
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1085/contents/made

Companies House also have a useful guide which covers the naming rules here:
http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gp1.shtml#ch6

Here are a few extracts from Chapter 6 of the Companies House guide on choosing a company name:

Can I choose any name I want for my proposed company?

No. There are a number of restrictions and controls on your choice of company name.

There are controls and restrictions on your choice of company name including rules which prevent the registration of a name which is the 'same as' an existing name on the index

What is meant by 'same as'?

If two company names are so similar they are likely to confuse the public as to which company is which, then they are the 'same as'.

What will be disregarded?

They include:

designated name endings (including permitted abbreviations and Welsh equivalents), e.g. "limited", "unlimited", "public limited company";

certain words and expressions including "co", "co.uk", "company", "UK"…

This makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Stephen]

Similar Company Names

For me “myRequiredName.co.uk” and “myRequiredName.uk” are too confusingly similar. .....lots of facts......

What will be disregarded?

They include:

designated name endings (including permitted abbreviations and Welsh equivalents), e.g. "limited", "unlimited", "public limited company";

certain words and expressions including "co", "co.uk", "company", "UK"…

This makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks for the viewpoint and the facts to back it up.

 

[Stephen]

Sale / non renewal of Domains

I have certaintly dropped more .co.uk domains this month than any other month in the last 6 years (some of which I cannot remember why I thought they were good in the first place!)

Also noticed today 595, yes 595 pure 3 letter .co.uk domains are for sale on this site for £167 each excluding VAT if you buy 6 or more.

I wonder if .org.uk registrations are up and .co.uk renewals are down?

Do you think their is a connection with the above to the Nominet .uk proposal?