.UK Announced

[websaway]

The question has been posted here for people to check for themselves, very interesting if true.

http://www.that.co.uk/nominet-proposals/eu-law-v-nominet-uk-proposal.html

If this has been overlooked.....well embarrassing is not the word.

Good stuff-
Ill conceived and improperly executed.

 

[rhaigh]

that having just joined the forum it does look like you may be touting for legal business

Hey Websaway, great point; i'd have thought the same

Just for the record, i'm not a solicitor and I don't recommend
any. As for finding one, i'd guess that any London-based firm
with a good reputation and track record will suffice.

At this stage, all that may be needed is for the solicitor to be
well-briefed on ALL the points that are of concern to the .co.uk
investment community, collectively, and for them to look at those
points with a view to ending Nominet's .uk aspirations, from a
legal standpoint.

Nominet claim to be looking for "feedback" from existing owners,
but frankly, i've heard all of this before and suspect that they
will try to mask the cries (of "foul play") and keeping talking
about their precious ideas re: security, etc in the hope that
time will enable people to forget.

A fully-briefed solicitor, however, will be able to show them now
that you mean business, and hopefully, it could result in their
plans for the .uk extension becoming permanently 'scuppered'.

By retaining a solicitor, and letting them handle this, you will all
be reducing your own stress levels... ensure that you, collectively,
'pack' the maximum punch... and it will save you time.

Responding to them via the channel/s that they have created
for you, places them firmly in control, and in charge. However,
I suspect that it is YOU that want to be in control and I think
the only way to do that is by finding and punching serious holes
in their proposals courtesy of a solicitor... and let them know
that your fight with them will never end until they give up their
ideas re: .uk.

I am sure that some representatives of Nominet will now be reading
this thread, so please be careful posting replies if you have concerns
about making your real identity public and it may be wise to discuss
any 'very sensitive' info with other forum members privately or, indeed,
offline.

Cheers,

 

[LordBull]

Welcome rhaigh

GreyWing - MUSTARD sire !
Buy that legal eagle pal of yours whatever his poison is ...

LB

 

[GreyWing]

Found out anyone in the EU can start a complaint over this and the EU will pick up the legal tab......

This just gets better and better and better...

 

[rhaigh]

...

 

[Marcoose]

I just wanted to check something, and I know Im being a complete noob by asking this....

I own a .org.uk that I was going to develop. The .co.uk lays dormant. If I develop the site now, will I likely be given rights to the .uk or has the cut off point been and gone?

 

[rhaigh]

I just wanted to check something, and I know Im being a complete noob by asking this....

I own a .org.uk that I was going to develop. The .co.uk lays dormant. If I develop the site now, will I likely be given rights to the .uk or has the cut off point been and gone?

Hi Marcoose, no you won't be given rights to
the .uk because you haven't developed*, and
so can not claim to have a registered or, indeed,
unregistered TM.

I hope that clarifies

* Developing from now won't give you rights either.

 

[Marcoose]

Hi Marcoose, no you won't be given rights to
the .uk because you haven't developed*, and
so can not claim to have a registered or, indeed,
unregistered TM.

I hope that clarifies

* Developing from now won't give you rights either.

What an absolute shitter.

 

[rhaigh]

What an absolute shitter.

Shitter indeed!..

 

[GreyWing]

How come the pdf form of the detailed proposal has gone missing / changed to unknown location on the Nominet set?

Times like this I'm glad I took a copy of the original...

 

[martin-s]

The question has been posted here for people to check for themselves, very interesting if true.

http://www.that.co.uk/nominet-proposals/eu-law-v-nominet-uk-proposal.html

If this has been overlooked.....well embarrassing is not the word.

I've read the update, but I'm not convinced that approach will fly. The Nominet approach simply means that the company would need a UK contact address - presumably a forwarding one will do.

And foreign companies aren't being blocked from trading - they could use the .co.uk - they're just being blocked from being listed as a verified uk based company. Can't imagine there is a law against that.

 

[GreyWing]

I've read the update, but I'm not convinced that approach will fly. The Nominet approach simply means that the company would need a UK contact address - presumably a forwarding one will do.

And foreign companies aren't being blocked from trading - they could use the .co.uk - they're just being blocked from being listed as a verified uk based company. Can't imagine there is a law against that.

That isn't what the EU says though, the EU says "unfair barriers to sell their goods".

There is no requirement in EU law that says a UK company needs to have UK contact details to trade. Don't get me wrong Nominet might think they do but they'd be wrong.

Define contact details though, UK landline number http://www.quickloans.co.uk/ql/quick-loans-scam.html Indian scammers using UK landline to divert to India.

UK address? Mailing offices allowed? If so what is the point in this rule if anyone can still register them from all over the world.

The only way to make it justifiable is a UK base, that is illegal though.

So they can't win...

 

[getmein]

I think they could claim that .uk has the same characteristics as other sTLDs like .asia. Then after that I guess it's for someone to challenge the proposed rules of the registry based on law. In any event, once the genie is out of the bottle, they can make procedural concessions related to the location of the registrant (or others) - but the cash cow will have been born.

I think they've made a calculated move where they realise that unlike the gTLDs where the success of individual strings will be based on the marketing/sales strategy of the operators, for .uk they have a captive market.

It's unconscionable for them to suggest that business can take or leave .uk. If it does become the preferred uk domain extension then there will be years of confusion for users as it makes that transition. As others have mentioned, the confusion and danger just of email going to the wrong place alone makes its imperative for active businesses to have both.

 

[GreyWing]

I've read the update, but I'm not convinced that approach will fly. The Nominet approach simply means that the company would need a UK contact address - presumably a forwarding one will do.

And foreign companies aren't being blocked from trading - they could use the .co.uk - they're just being blocked from being listed as a verified uk based company. Can't imagine there is a law against that.

Just double checked and that is not what is being said anyway, this is a direct press release from Nominet via the BBC

http://www.that.co.uk/nominet-proposals/nominet-press-release.html

"Proposed key features include; verification to check a registrant has a UK address, daily monitoring for malicious software and viruses, and a digital signature which minimises the risks of a domain name being hijacked. These measures would be supported by a trustmark to give consumers a clear sign that it was a verified domain name."

 

[martin-s]

It feels like too thin a challenge to stop the process to me.

 

[GreyWing]

It feels like too thin a challenge to stop the process to me.

The law is too thin based to stop something? What else you expecting the starship enterprise with photon torpedo's?

Sorry mate, but I think it is very embarrassing for them to spend a year coming up with something for a law graduate to spot it is illegal in 2 minutes of looking at it.

It is illegal, it can't continue... end of exercise. They can still continue with the other proposals but the main one is shot to pieces and it a big symbol to independent onlookers of how ill thought out it is.

 

[simondooner]

Reminds me of Gordon Browns “British jobs for British workers” policy of 2007.

At the time… Mr Cameron said the Prime Minister also knew that EU law made reserving jobs for British people illegal.

 

[websaway]

The law is too thin based to stop something? What else you expecting the starship enterprise with photon torpedo's?

Sorry mate, but I think it is very embarrassing for them to spend a year coming up with something for a law graduate to spot it is illegal in 2 minutes of looking at it.

It is illegal, it can't continue... end of exercise. They can still continue with the other proposals but the main one is shot to pieces and it a big symbol to independent onlookers of how ill thought out it is.

The upside is it might throw a spanner in the works and may temporarily halt the process.

 

[rhaigh]

It feels like too thin a challenge to stop the process to me.

I know that is what it must feel like at times Martin, but
I honestly believe they are on shaky ground with .uk.

Hit them with enough ammo and I believe they will relent
quickly and begin to offer "grand-fathering" rights to .co.uk
owners; which is what most of you want.

 

[websaway]

I know that is what it must feel like at times Martin, but
I honestly believe they are on shaky ground with .uk.

Hit them with enough ammo and I believe they will relent
quickly and begin to offer "grand-fathering" rights to .co.uk
owners; which is what most of you want.

Grand fathering rights isn't the only issue for me. I bought into the business/commercial extention in the uk domain space (the class uses for all the extensions were clearly defined ). I don't see why they should just invent another identical space and charge me again for it. Many people have invested more than a decade of time and large sums of money, often their homes are mortgaged to the bank, on the strength of Nominets promotional message.