.UK Announced

[websaway]

My opinion as a small online business owner is this.

We will have to buy the brandname.uk to protect our brand and all we will do is 301 it to our co.uk because there is no reason to switch.

^ I think that will be the case for most co.uk owners, they wont move but they will have to have the .uk to protect their brand.

On the other hand I was thinking "Well maybe this will be a good opportunity for new businesses to get the name they want" but, it's a bad business plan to get a direct.uk without the co.uk because I would imagine a lot of direct traffic would by default go to the .co.uk version when typing it in.. so that's no good; if you have to buy the co.uk version you might as well just have done that in the first place and you don't need the direct.uk

For the above reasons I can't see how whoever suggested direct.uk wasn't logically shot down straight away.. assuming nominet are trying to do things in the best interest of the public.

Honestly, the one thing I am absolutely sure of is Nominet are not doing this in the best interests of the public /consumer.
Why would you impose on an already confused john bloggs the necessity to buy a jbplumbingservices.co.uk domain as well as a jbplumbingservices.uk domain next year. He is a retail buyer and it's not an investment, it's an unnecessary duplicated additional cost to his business. The majority of the people they have targeted for feedback will see a massive boon for their business interests from john bloggs having to fork out more money and not as a one off cost but recurring.

 

[Stephen]

Nominet reponse

Nominet reponse to Guardian article by Phil Kingsland

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/media-network-blog/2012/dec/17/value-secure-uk-namespace-nominet

 

[addz123]

For the record, if you're going to make comments on his response, do it on the article rather than in this forum (where no one other than yourself is going to see it).

 

[Edwin]

Nominet reponse to Guardian article by Phil Kingsland

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/media-network-blog/2012/dec/17/value-secure-uk-namespace-nominet

100% repetition of their "cover story" they've been pushing the whole time. Nothing new, and filled with distortions, half-truths and out and out lies. No surprise there, then.

 

[Paullas]

Nominet reponse to Guardian article by Phil Kingsland

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/media-network-blog/2012/dec/17/value-secure-uk-namespace-nominet

Nominet head in sand comes to mind

 

[foz]

Nominet reponse to Guardian article by Phil Kingsland

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/media-network-blog/2012/dec/17/value-secure-uk-namespace-nominet

We believe that the proposed product will create a new, trusted online home for British businesses and we hope it will help to support the internet economy by combating cybercrime and creating a namespace which consumers trust; driving additional e-commerce and online transactions.

What a load of nonsense. I guess lay people out there will swallow such drivel.

 

[Stephen]

Responses

For the record, if you're going to make comments on his response, do it on the article rather than in this forum (where no one other than yourself is going to see it).

Have sent email to original author Adam Grunwerg's hoping that he can respond to the response with an update piece.

So although I agree it is well worth responding directly to the Guardain ,it is worth adding comments here to help move the debate on to give Adam and anybody else a new perspective on the issues.

 

[Stephen]

Get proper debate?

Nominet head in sand comes to mind

As it is a repeat of Nominet stance as Edwin states, maybe a list of questions that they keep ducking should be proposed, to try to move on the debate?

 

[Marcoose]

Have sent email to original author Adam Grunwerg's hoping that he can respond to the response with an update piece.

So although I agree it is well worth responding directly to the Guardain ,it is worth adding comments here to help move the debate on to give Adam and anybody else a new perspective on the issues.

You're responding to the author lol.

 

[Edwin]

I have posted a detailed comment to the latest Guardian piece (in fact, I got a bit over-enthusiastic with the "submit" button and posted part of it twice - oh, well)

 

[Stephen]

Original author

You're responding to the author lol.

I have sent a request to the author of the original Guardian article which was critical of the .uk proposal, Adam Grunwerg.

It would be water of a ducks back to respond to Phil Kingsland of Nominet, as they have not moved on their thinking even after all the criticism presented to Nominet, but I will when I have calmed down.

 

[Edwin]

I promise you it's a waste of time trying to get Nominet to admit anything publicly other than what they're already saying. Many have tried, all have failed. Basically Phil's job (literally) is to toe the company line every single inch of the way. So the only way of "countering" them is to deconstruct and oppose their arguments coherently and rationally whenever they're made.

 

[martin-s]

Hmm. Concerning that the response doesn't show any intention to adjust the direction of travel. With you on that.

On the ownership validation issue, an AML standard check might be more appropriate.

 

[Marcoose]

I have sent a request to the author of the original Guardian article which was critical of the .uk proposal, Adam Grunwerg.

It would be water of a ducks back to respond to Phil Kingsland of Nominet, as they have not moved on their thinking even after all the criticism presented to Nominet, but I will when I have calmed down.

Ah OK, my bad.

 

[Edwin]

On the ownership validation issue, an AML standard check might be more appropriate.

Is that something that can be applied to any kind of entity (person, company, trust, non-profit, other) anywhere in the world? Because only the contact address needs to be in the UK; the registrant can be anywhere... Nominet have basically admitted as much themselves. From their consultation FAQ "The proposed service is primarily aimed at those living or doing business in the UK - a UK service address will be required in order to register a domain." (my emphasis)

 

[peter_w]

I have sent a request to the author of the original Guardian article which was critical of the .uk proposal, Adam Grunwerg.

It would be water of a ducks back to respond to Phil Kingsland of Nominet, as they have not moved on their thinking even after all the criticism presented to Nominet, but I will when I have calmed down.

But Adam Grunwerg is the person who you quoted when you posted the above... I presumed that was the point Marcoose was making, though he then seems to have retracted it.

 

[websaway]

interesting how he chose shop as an example.

co.uk is in use org.uk for sale and trademark filed 1/10/2012 for shop.



He does admit that the holder of the .co.uk would want to register the .uk
I believe this is an important part of the arguement, he is saying .uk is an addition rather than a transition, if it were an addition there would be no rights at all for current holders of co.uk org.uk etc. It would simply be a free for all.

 

[Marcoose]

But Adam Grunwerg is the person who you quoted when you posted the above... I presumed that was the point Marcoose was making, though he then seems to have retracted it.

No retraction on that. Just that Stephen contacted the guy that wrote the reply, not Adam.... unless I'm being 'challenged'.

 

[peter_w]

I read Stephen's response as thinking you were laughing at the fact he was wasting his time emailing the Nominet guy (I'm totally confusing even myself now as I type this). I presumed in fact you were highlighting the fact that Stephen had quoted Addz saying he was emailing Adam Grunwerg (who I'm sure IS addz?)... which was funny.

 

[Stephen]

clarification

No retraction on that. Just that Stephen contacted the guy that wrote the reply, not Adam.... unless I'm being 'challenged'.

Sorry for any confusion. I sent an email to Adam Grunwerg, who wrote the original article criticising the Nominet .uk proposal to make him aware of Nominet's reply article.

In the hope that he would write another Guardian article possibly attacking the lack of any depth and content of the Nominet response.

I presumed in fact you were highlighting the fact that Stephen had quoted Addz saying he was emailing Adam Grunwerg (who I'm sure IS addz?)... which was funny.

Sorry I did not notice who did the post and I had sent the email to him at the same time I did the original post mentioning the Nominet article!
Glad that's all sorted!