.UK Announced

[monaghan]

no policy that is going to cost British business billions (or even hundreds of millions) is going to be allowed by the UK Government.

Since when has the government had any clue as to real costs of anything, let alone understand the Internet?

 

[Brassneck]

Since when has the government had any clue as to real costs of anything, let alone understand the Internet?

Do you really believe that?

 

[Blossom]

As I've already said, type-in traffic accounts for very little these days, search engines are more important and if you're business is number one because of the quality of the site and your reputation, that won't be affected by someone owning the .uk

That depends on how Google decides to weight .uk vs. .co.uk.

 

[websaway]

I don't understand why anyone is confused, just make a decision based on what you know. You know the best case scenario and if you believe .uk is bad, then you know the worse case scenario. I've bought twelve mainly three and four-figure domains in the last three weeks because to me nothing has changed. The internet is full of opportunity and the best time to build something is when established businesses are experiencing Armageddon.



The domain doesn't have to be the brand and only domainers will tell you otherwise. The majority of businesses are local or at best regional and the internet is part of rather than the core of of their marketing. If you build a web site using .co.uk and someone registers the .uk and seeks to trade off your goodwill then Nominet have the DRS process to redress that.

As I've already said, type-in traffic accounts for very little these days, search engines are more important and if you're business is number one because of the quality of the site and your reputation, that won't be affected by someone owning the .uk



People shop based on trust, if you've built a site that is successful, people will always find you. If someone registers acorndomains.uk we'll all know that we're in the wrong site IF we type the wrong address and if someone builds a domain resource then Alan WOULD win a DRS case.

I'm not in favour of .uk because I think it will only create two things, another opportunity for domain speculators to get rich and big bonus' for the directors and staff at Nominet. I'm certainly not against it based on a lot of the FUD being spread on here.

You are confident that the big search engine in five to ten years would not favour .uk over .co.uk then ?

 

[crazihos]

People shop based on trust, if you've built a site that is successful, people will always find you. If someone registers acorndomains.uk we'll all know that we're in the wrong site IF we type the wrong address and if someone builds a domain resource then Alan WOULD win a DRS case

What about more generic names say mobiles.co.uk - I dont think drs would be as clear cut then so the direct.uk name would lead to more annoying competition for current owners coupled with potential confusion?

Also - is a drs £750? I dont know if this fee is refunded if you win - if it isnt lots of smaller business owners might not be able to afford the dispute.

 

[getmein]

I don't understand why anyone is confused, just make a decision based on what you know. You know the best case scenario and if you believe .uk is bad, then you know the worse case scenario. I've bought twelve mainly three and four-figure domains in the last three weeks because to me nothing has changed. The internet is full of opportunity and the best time to build something is when established businesses are experiencing Armageddon.

Or, wait till there is greater clarity.

If you build a web site using .co.uk and someone registers the .uk and seeks to trade off your goodwill then Nominet have the DRS process to redress that.

I think you'd struggle to show goodwill in a generic local term like 'london builders' - you could have a combination of organic and paid listings on the same page which could easily cause user confusion, without being able to use DRS to stop the other business.

If someone registers acorndomains.uk we'll all know that we're in the wrong site IF we type the wrong address and if someone builds a domain resource then Alan WOULD win a DRS case.

That's true - but it's not the same for a generic term like 'camera' (where there are multiple trademarks for the term - another potential problem with the current proposals) and it might be difficult to prove you'd built any goodwill in a generic, dictionary word. If camera.uk was acquired by a different party to camera.co.uk - it remains to be seen how a DRS would handle it.

 

[Blossom]

I agree and while I'm no expert on the working of Google, from the evidence that I've read recently, Google are starting to weight more towards quality content rather than the domain. If someone registers a .uk domain and builds a quality web site that competes for ranking with .co.uk, org.uk, com or whatever then that's simply healthy competition and the winner is the person browsing.

Assuming that the safety aspects of .uk are pushed/qualified in some way, Google might consider .uk a preferred result.

 

[websaway]

But then that's more about the features of .uk than the extension itself and perhaps you can then argue wilful negligence on Nominet's part?

Won't it be a bit late to argue. The fact is that .uk will be an unnecessary direct competitor to the co.uk and now is the time to argue about the possible or likely effects of it's introduction.

 

[websaway]

Who say's it's unnecessary? I've already said that I don't view direct.uk as a bad thing but I question the motivation behind it and I'm against it for that reason. The thing that bothers me more at the moment is this constant talking down of the market.

I say it's unnecessary. You don't go as far as to say it's a good thing and coupled with the facts that you question the motivation behind it and recognise the effect it's having on the confidence of the co.uk domain space means we are not a million miles apart.

 

[websaway]

But you're in the minority. From the evidence I've seen the majority of people that care enough to comment are at worst apathetic and at best welcoming of the new proposals.

Your findings not mine.

 

[foz]

But you're in the minority. From the evidence I've seen the majority of people that care enough to comment are at worst apathetic and at best welcoming of the new proposals.

As the "evidence" is not being published, no one can make claims of what the majority is. Based on the .nz submissions it was not welcomed (the ones that gave full responses). I read them all.

My judgement as to how developed the direct.uk proposal is and Nominet not publishing the submissions in full, not making all Registrants aware, indicates to me their motives.

As an investor in domains I will not be sinking anymore money into .co.uk until their is clarity, apart from the odd £5 drop catch.

 

[James]

The general vibe I'm getting leads me to believe that many here are too heavily invested in what is increasingly looking like a dated paradigm, as the world of IT exponentially develops and some truly amazing technologies launch all over the periphery. I suppose that is what worries me more than anything else.

.UK will probably come, but later that too will go. We are in the midst of a paradigm shift so there are various overlapping technologies (overlapping in terms of needs-fulfilling). If you're in the world of IT you probably ought to be a futurist, at least a little bit.

Of course that doesn't help with the current .uk discussion, which in itself I'd agree ought to be handled carefully.

 

[viceroy]

Heard on the young apprentice: 'non deal shop .co.uk' as an unprompted cursory remark by a small business, it just illustrates how much of a brand .co.uk is becoming/ has become... He didn't say '.uk' or '.com'!

 

[websaway]

The general vibe I'm getting leads me to believe that many here are too heavily invested in what is increasingly looking like a dated paradigm, as the world of IT exponentially develops and some truly amazing technologies launch all over the periphery. I suppose that is what worries me more than anything else.

.UK will probably come, but later that too will go. We are in the midst of a paradigm shift so there are various overlapping technologies (overlapping in terms of needs-fulfilling). If you're in the world of IT you probably ought to be a futurist, at least a little bit.

Of course that doesn't help with the current .uk discussion, which in itself I'd agree ought to be handled carefully.

I understand the big shift you are predicting but the one thing I can't see is what alternative to joebloggscarpenter.co.uk or .uk will he be putting on the side of his van. I must say not always as viewable as it could be. Often hidden down in the corner of the back end instead of plastered like an ambulance sign all down both sides to attract attention and to publicise his existence.

 

[foz]

But as one of the rare people that has invested quite heavily in .co.uk rather than being a pure drop catcher, you stand to lose more than most by talking down the market and with due respect, I think that what you're doing is counter productive and won't achieve anything other than the long term damage of .co.uk

Talking down the market? I am merely stating what I'm doing. I doubt end users frequent this forum. It is Nominet that is inflicting damage on .co.uk not me. I will look at investing in .uk if it comes to fruition.

 

[Edwin]

But you're in the minority. From the evidence I've seen the majority of people that care enough to comment are at worst apathetic and at best welcoming of the new proposals.

I've no idea where you're getting your "evidence". The majority of people (only a handful of whom were domainers) at the Nominet sessions I attended in London were against the proposals.

Most of the news/blog articles and comments I've seen are against the proposals. http://www.mydomainnames.co.uk/articles.html

100% of the admittedly small number of "real" small business owners that I've chatted to and taken the time to explain the full picture to have been against the proposals.

Where are these supposed coachloads of people who are welcoming .uk with open arms like it's the Second Coming? They're proving remarkably elusive given that they're the "majority".

 

[Stephen]

Missing auguments from .uk made in .NZ

As the "evidence" is not being published, no one can make claims of what the majority is. Based on the .nz submissions it was not welcomed (the ones that gave full responses). I read them all.
My judgement as to how developed the direct.uk proposal is and Nominet not publishing the submissions in full, not making all Registrants aware, indicates to me their motives.

As an investor in domains I will not be sinking anymore money into .co.uk until their is clarity, apart from the odd £5 drop catch.

If possible would you please share any particular aurguments/viewpoints/observations made in the .NZ case that have not appeared on this thread.

 

[anthony]

...100% of the admittedly small number of "real" small business owners that I've chatted to and taken the time to explain the full picture to have been against the proposals...

The problem with that statement is I cannot see how you could ever come over to them as impartial, your feelings over this matter are that you're very much against it, and that will always be betrayed by your posts, blogs, statements, line of conversation. Couple that with their perception of your standing in the domain industry, and it is easy to believe that they have been influenced in their decisions.

 

[Brassneck]

The problem with that statement is I cannot see how you could ever come over to them as impartial, your feelings over this matter are that you're very much against it, and that will always be betrayed by your posts, blogs, statements, line of conversation. Couple that with their perception of your standing in the domain industry, and it is easy to believe that they have been influenced in their decisions.

Agree 100 % with Anthony and Sean.

Surely (Edwin and others) must see that unless you get really big business and reputable stakeholders against this proposal then your arguments are bound to be seen as nothing more than self-interest.

Stephen.

 

[monaghan]

If you really cared about others then you'd be against this proposal without reservation as I am but instead you've chosen to edge your bets by suggesting that if it must go ahead then grandfather rights should be given to the registrants with the oldest registration. You do this in the knowledge that you'd keep your very best pre-96 domains but equally knowing that many of those that have paid you not insignificant sums of money for relatively recent domains will have very little chance of getting their equivalent .uk. so save me the lecture please.

Not wanting to appear to be fighting Edwin's corner, but there are many without large portfolio who would benefit from having grandfather rights. What about all those who have bought "premium" names from one of the sellers here who have made their fortunes selling these names - do they not also have the right to have the "new UK premium" domain? What about those who registered a long time ago without trademark? Of course big business can afford to buy out trademark holders to ensure that they can get the domains they want.

Where there's a new TLD, then I'm happy to accept that first come first served or whatever the registry decides is the selection criteria, however, this is not a new TLD it is simply a reorganisation of the overall .uk namespace.

It only takes an badly informed journalist to produce a TV show or half a page in a newspaper telling the "facebook generation" that .uk replaces all other previous .co.uk, .org.uk & .me.uk domains and you then have a huge chunk of the UK immediately reducing the whole .uk namespace down to just .uk

Personally, I'm undecided, I like the idea of [myname].uk but I don't hold a trademark so potentially even though I had the .co.uk pre-Nominet and been using it continuously since registration so could potentially loose it to someone else.