.uk .UK Announced

[grantw]

Thanks. It says the domain needs to be have shown in used prior to 3 months before the publication of the consultation.

That basically means you need to be using the domain by this week or it's too late to get unregistered rights.

No, the consultation was published 01/10/12 so your domain would need to have been in use 3 months prior to that.

Grant

 

[grantw]

What if you have a domain that is auto forwarding to another URL as the said domain was registered to protect your already existing asset. Does this constitute as usage?

No one will know how usage is defined until nominet go into more detail.

Grant

 

[GreyWing]

What if you have a domain that is auto forwarding to another URL as the said domain was registered to protect your already existing asset. Does this constitute as usage?
.

Or email only, or private sub pages, private sub domains, pages that blocked robots...

Remember one thing though as someone told me... Most of you will have it in writing that it is being used if just being redirected..... why?

Well if you opted out of the whois previously, but forwarded your domains to a landing page and someone made a complaint to Nominet, Nominet would order you to opt back in to the whois.

Even if you told them that it was just being redirected to a landing page, they ordered me previously to opt back in as they said the domain was being used... They can't now claim that redirects were not being used.

I got that in writing from 3 years ago and have the record of it. I suspect some of you will also have this in the form of an email over the time you have been active.

 

[tifosi]

And when Nominet did this 'snapshot' if:
the server or host dns was down? Service levels happen...
the domain requird renewal and the registrar put up their own ad pages? Thanks Fasthosts!
the domain was temporarily suspended? We all know it happens to even the biggest companies from watching drop lists...

What then? Valid nameservers but fail the in use test? That's farcical!

 

[GreyWing]

What then? Valid nameservers but fail the in use test? That's farcical!

Or what turns out to be even more farcical, will the Scottish be allowed to keep their .uk domain names if they go independent in 2014?

Who knows?

 

[eddieb]

Or what turns out to be even more farcical, will the Scottish be allowed to keep their .uk domain names if they go independent in 2014?

Who knows?

I would imagine they will bring out their own .scot or similar domain name to cash in on

 

[addz123]

No, the consultation was published 01/10/12 so your domain would need to have been in use 3 months prior to that.

Grant

How do you know it doesnt meant 3 months prior to the publication of the results of the consultation (which happens some time in Jan 2013)?

i.e the publication of the consultation hasn't happend yet, because the consultation hasn't been completed.

 

[websaway]

If all that is being said is correct and I agree with most of the interpretation.
Would anyone in the know register a new co.uk domain which won't qualify for a guaranteed .uk ?
And doesn't a quality co.uk name which fits the necessary criteria to qualify( no qualifying registered trademark ) for the .uk have an increasing inherent value.

 

[grantw]

How do you know it doesnt meant 3 months prior to the publication of the results of the consultation (which happens some time in Jan 2013)?

Because it says 'three months prior to the publication of this consultation' ie. the thing you're reading.

It also says 'in order to counter speculative activity' - so would be pretty stupid to announce a cut off date in the future

Could be wrong but that's how I read it.

Grant

 

[addz123]

Also, I'm sure there's some way of proving that the domain was in use if you were ordering content, getting a theme/coding designs and could provide you had plans to develop the domain...even if there wasn't a site currently present on.

 

[GreyWing]

I love this quote from a tech guy that blogged about this:

"As proposed their solution puts me in mind of locking all the passengers deep in the bowels of the Titanic and then selling first-class ticket upgrades to let people out and at the lifeboats."

 

[Systreg]

"As proposed their solution puts me in mind of locking all the passengers deep in the bowels of the Titanic and then selling first-class ticket upgrades to let people out and at the lifeboats."

Haha, yeah, and then they'll say the lifeboats aren't secure enough due to having many holes in them, so you can pay even more, say £20, for bungs to stick in the holes

 

[WaftyCrank]

Is this why nominet crawled every registered domain? So as to establish which ones were being used etc?

Very presumptuous of them at such an early stage.

Who is leading this process at nominet?

When was it decided to look into this, meetings etc and people present?

If anyone has the answers I'd be very grateful.

When did nominet do this crawl?

 

[GreyWing]

Absolutely, if this proposal is going to be defeated then it has to be for the good of everyone that owns a .co.uk domain and not just domain 'investors'.

I'd disagree to be honest Sean, if it goes through it will be great for investors as most businesses that got a decent domain under first come first served rule will lose out to investors, but when I say investors I mean the big big boy investors.

 

[getmein]

it will be great for investors

I couldn't agree more. If it does go ahead, whatever framework they agree on, will likely provide opportunities for those with deep pockets to secure many of the best names. Whether that's through the usage of 'questionable' TMs, buying rights from holders of existing SLDs or simply the landrush phase where holders of TM/existing SLDs haven't secured their .uk domain in the sunrise.

Just like the short name auctions, I think most of the income generated will be from investors.

 

[cav]

just been reading a magazine and it looks like some people are already ahead of the game....

 

[viceroy]

I'd disagree to be honest Sean, if it goes through it will be great for investors as most businesses that got a decent domain under first come first served rule will lose out to investors, but when I say investors I mean the big big boy investors.

I agree, since most businesses haven't been told and if they have, it hasn't been directly from nom. The ones in the know aren't going to be the ones losing out here. Been doing a lot of research locally and nobody (businesses and individuals) knows about the proposal, where to find out about it, what they can do about it and how it'll affect them. I even spoke to a web and domain name consultant in the city where i live (granted, i posed as a noob) and he assured me that it wont affect me in any way but if i was interested, he'd reserve a name for me for a price...

 

[websaway]

I agree, since most businesses haven't been told and if they have, it hasn't been directly from nom. The ones in the know aren't going to be the ones losing out here. Been doing a lot of research locally and nobody (businesses and individuals) knows about the proposal, where to find out about it, what they can do about it and how it'll affect them. I even spoke to a web and domain name consultant in the city where i live (granted, i posed as a noob) and he assured me that it wont affect me in any way but if i was interested, he'd reserve a name for me for a price...

This is typical of what will happen, most business internet users are not internet savvy and if someone else has to assist it will cost, and that's on top of the probably £29.99 plus vat retail price of the name, which is often names, more than one.
And of course then the cost of using the domain with their website, and you'll have to seo the new name, all this to get to where you already are.

 

[GreyWing]

I agree, since most businesses haven't been told and if they have, it hasn't been directly from nom.

Very true, It isn't like Nominet doesn't have their email addresses is it?

 

[GreyWing]

Surely that impacts on the impartiality of Nominet and begs the question of whether this needs some kind of independent review?

They had one of those in 2009 and were reported to have given certain guidance to the conclusion of the review because the person doing the review didn't fully understand what he was reviewing. Not making that up either.