.UK Announced

[martin-s]

The problem is that it is not just those who registered domains for resale / profit that will be impacted, if you are a small business up against a multi-national, you will just not be able to afford your name. In effect your site / business becomes relegated as a 2nd class UK business due to the way that .uk is being presented (we all understand domains, however, the facebook generation generally has no clue and simply accept what they are told). If Nominet choose not to tell all current domain holders (some odd thing about data protection when you already get emails from Nominet) then you are down to your registrar telling you to apply for it again, if you don't get told (after all a lot of small business have their sites done by "bedroom developers") then you are likely to find out when it is too late.

How do you define a dispute process? Surely if there was a valid dispute criteria the potential alternative registrant would be able to DRS the current .co.uk which being the leading UK domain branding would be the current domain of choice.

'Cannot afford' is not true in my proposed version of events, where a dispute process with a shared fixed fee is used instead of an auction.

However I agree completely with you about needing much more widespread communication should the proposal go ahead.

In my proposal, every domain with more than one applicant would go through a 'who deserves it most' adjudication by a third party (might well effectively be the existing dispute mechanism). I'm not suggesting there's any dispute of existing registrations, just that there will often be more than one applicant who is deserving - it's a question of deciding who is most deserving.

For instance, trademarks which are not in active use or have been inappropriately registered would fail to trump a genuine business with the .co.uk.

The biggest problem with this whole proposal is that it's difficult to decide who is most deserving. So that's what I've focused my response on.

Edit: And worth saying that I don't like the auction because it unfairly favours those with the deepest pockets, and the only winners are Nominet who don't need the money.

 

[Stephen]

prior use?

Yes, you are to suggest what should constitute prior use. ...

Out of interest would you please answer, did you in your 2,300 word response cover "prior use" as a topic and express your views or was the proposal so drafted that it was not picked up as a question that required comment?

 

[foz]

In my proposal, every domain with more than one applicant would go through a 'who deserves it most' adjudication by a third party (might well effectively be the existing dispute mechanism). I'm not suggesting there's any dispute of existing registrations, just that there will often be more than one applicant who is deserving - it's a question of deciding who is most deserving.

Any proposal that brings an interpretation by a third party is a fail.

The natural order of first come first served can't be beaten and unreasonable to allow for direct.uk.

 

[martin-s]

Thinking about it more, the dispute process could be simpler than the current DRS procedure.

What I proposed was in the 'pre existing rights' sunrise that every applicant has the option of paying their share or withdrawing pre-adjudication.

Because of the necessary administration overhead of validating claims, an adjudication fee will always be payable in the case of sunrise names.

If there is only one applicant, or all but one applicant withdraws, the remaining applicant wins providing they can substantiate their claim of pre-existing rights to an acceptable level. In this case, the fee could be relatively minor, say £75-100, because the task of approving it is relatively simple.

If more than one applicant proceeds, they share the adjudication fee equally irrespective of the result. E.g. £500 adjudication fee split between 2 competing applicants is £250 each (or 10 at £50 each).

Each applicant would be given a window of say 30 days to upload their case and any supporting documentation.

A selection of, say, 5 adjudicators would be randomly assigned from the adjudicator pool (made up of DRS adjudicators perhaps).

Each adjudicator would then review the evidence and use their own judgement (subject to guidelines) before submitting their vote (for either a specific candidate or no candidates).

If no winner has proven a qualifying right, the domain moves through to the landrush phase.

Assuming a (highest votes based) winner, the result would be binding.

In the case of a tie, a second round of adjudication with only the tied applicants could proceed. And in the case of a tie remaining after that stage, at that point it could go to auction where I proposed one sealed bid - with the winning bid being limited to being £1 greater than the next biggest offer.

Each adjudicator would be paid a share of the adjudication fee for their time, minus the reg fee.

This would:

* Give everyone who believes they have a legitimate call on the domain an opportunity to take part without having to worry about breaking the bank, or being beaten to the tape.
* Re-inject the money into the economy (via adjudicators), rather than into Nominet's pockets.
* Give the best chance of the most deserving registrant winning - based on expert opinion.
* Avoid an auction in all but the most complex cases - and limit the costs to the minimum winning bid, rather than create a sealed bid overspend.

 

[martin-s]

Out of interest would you please answer, did you in your 2,300 word response cover "prior use" as a topic and express your views or was the proposal so drafted that it was not picked up as a question that required comment?

Indeed it did Stephen, but you're right that the questions asked weren't the only ones worth answering..

Edit: and to be specific, I suggested that ownership of that domain with another extension should be considered a pre-existing right. However, I did also suggest that domain investors should not be given priority over businesses with legitimate existing use (as part of the adjudication procedure).

 

[grantw]

This would:

....take years and years to process and require UK businesses to fork out £millions in fees and with no guarantee of getting anything for their money/time.

It's an insane idea in my opinion and doesn't sound simpler than the DRS at all!

Grant

 

[monaghan]

If Nominet are wanting to promote internet business, then how can they risk putting existing business at risk by even considering allocating the domain elsewhere?

I can see the dislike of domainers, however, as there is no formal indication of what a .co.uk domain can be used for, then it has to be assumed that any use of a .co.uk is valid and one of my parked domains is just as valid a use as my business site sat on a pre-nom. Unless there is a legally tested set of valid uses of a domain, then how can you determine who is the most deserving? Naturally, everyone will think they are the most deserving.

Picking a domain at random - shoeshop co uk this has an affiliate link to a closed affiliate and has been registered for many years, there must be hundreds of independent shoe shops out there who would also consider they are more deserving. Assuming you can narrow this down to just 2 shops who also have a website, is the shop in my town more deserving than the shop in yours? What about the 3rd shop who is currently saving up to run an on-line shop or the charity raising funds for the local hospital children's ward by sellign shoes via an on-line shop?

 

[martin-s]

....take years and years to process and require UK businesses to fork out £millions in fees and with no guarantee of getting anything for their money/time.

It's an insane idea in my opinion and doesn't sound simpler than the DRS at all!

Grant

It would take time yes, but not necessarily more than a few months - which I think would be more than acceptable. Businesses are paying to share the risk of winning the domain - very fair I'd say. It's a pre-qualifier - how much do you believe in your case for registration.

 

[martin-s]

If Nominet are wanting to promote internet business, then how can they risk putting existing business at risk by even considering allocating the domain elsewhere?

I can see the dislike of domainers, however, as there is no formal indication of what a .co.uk domain can be used for, then it has to be assumed that any use of a .co.uk is valid and one of my parked domains is just as valid a use as my business site sat on a pre-nom. Unless there is a legally tested set of valid uses of a domain, then how can you determine who is the most deserving? Naturally, everyone will think they are the most deserving.

Picking a domain at random - shoeshop co uk this has an affiliate link to a closed affiliate and has been registered for many years, there must be hundreds of independent shoe shops out there who would also consider they are more deserving. Assuming you can narrow this down to just 2 shops who also have a website, is the shop in my town more deserving than the shop in yours? What about the 3rd shop who is currently saving up to run an on-line shop or the charity raising funds for the local hospital children's ward by sellign shoes via an on-line shop?

For shoeshop, unless one or more of the shoe shops in question had a valid pre-existing right, the domain wouldn't be assigned in the sunrise phase, but rather the landrush. (Maybe a lottery instead of an auction there!?)

Pre-existing rights for me are:

* A valid and in-use trademark
* A domain registration (in use > evidence of existing plans for use > parked)
* A Companies House registered name
* Etc.

Not simply that it's your industry or trade.

 

[websaway]

I believe that, given time, market forces would cause .uk to naturally replace .co.uk. I also believe that would be a positive step - shorter is always better (except in the bedroom).

I think your rather jovial answer above, to my question below, proves that you can find little or no justification. ( market forces couldn't cause .uk to replace co.uk if there was no .uk in the first place ) try to answer exactly my question below.


So how do you justify the single issue that nominet have already sold the corporate/business webspace in the form of .co.uk and are selling it again by issuing .uk, even if they sell it to the same entity that bought the co.uk originally ?

 

[martin-s]

So how do you justify the single issue that nominet have already sold the corporate/business webspace in the form of .co.uk and are selling it again by issuing .uk, even if they sell it to the same entity that bought the co.uk originally ?

* Shorter is better and, done correctly
* Some rights holders have been short-changed in the existing .co.uk model
* Sometimes newer rights should trump older rights
* This is an opportunity to re-address the balance on a 'most deserving' basis
(* Life's not fair and sometimes progress hurts)

 

[websaway]

* Shorter is better and, done correctly
* Some rights holders have been short-changed in the existing .co.uk model
* Sometimes newer rights should trump older rights
* This is an opportunity to re-address the balance on a 'most deserving' basis
(* Life's not fair and sometimes progress hurts)

I can only assume that by not addressing the issue of nominet selling the same corporate space twice ( as per my question below ), you can't.
I understand that you would like the outcome, in the unlikely event it ever comes to pass, but I would have liked your opinion on the key issue of selling the commercial space it's already sold once for a second time. Simple question.

Originally Posted by websaway
So how do you justify the single issue that nominet have already sold the corporate/business webspace in the form of .co.uk and are selling it again by issuing .uk, even if they sell it to the same entity that bought the co.uk originally ?

 

[martin-s]

I thought I'd answered your question to be honest, but for the avoidance of doubt:

I don't agree that they're selling the corporate space for a second time if the registrant selection process is fair and gives the most deserving priority.

 

[TinkyWinky]

Thinking about it more, the dispute process could be simpler than the current DRS procedure.

What I proposed was in the 'pre existing rights' sunrise that every applicant has the option of paying their share or withdrawing pre-adjudication.

Because of the necessary administration overhead of validating claims, an adjudication fee will always be payable in the case of sunrise names.

If there is only one applicant, or all but one applicant withdraws, the remaining applicant wins providing they can substantiate their claim of pre-existing rights to an acceptable level. In this case, the fee could be relatively minor, say £75-100, because the task of approving it is relatively simple.

If more than one applicant proceeds, they share the adjudication fee equally irrespective of the result. E.g. £500 adjudication fee split between 2 competing applicants is £250 each (or 10 at £50 each).

Each applicant would be given a window of say 30 days to upload their case and any supporting documentation.

A selection of, say, 5 adjudicators would be randomly assigned from the adjudicator pool (made up of DRS adjudicators perhaps).

Each adjudicator would then review the evidence and use their own judgement (subject to guidelines) before submitting their vote (for either a specific candidate or no candidates).

If no winner has proven a qualifying right, the domain moves through to the landrush phase.

Assuming a (highest votes based) winner, the result would be binding.

In the case of a tie, a second round of adjudication with only the tied applicants could proceed. And in the case of a tie remaining after that stage, at that point it could go to auction where I proposed one sealed bid - with the winning bid being limited to being £1 greater than the next biggest offer.

Each adjudicator would be paid a share of the adjudication fee for their time, minus the reg fee.

This would:

* Give everyone who believes they have a legitimate call on the domain an opportunity to take part without having to worry about breaking the bank, or being beaten to the tape.
* Re-inject the money into the economy (via adjudicators), rather than into Nominet's pockets.
* Give the best chance of the most deserving registrant winning - based on expert opinion.
* Avoid an auction in all but the most complex cases - and limit the costs to the minimum winning bid, rather than create a sealed bid overspend.

Sounds 'fine' - so who is going to manage 5m+ domain requests with an average of lets say 2 - 3 companies vying for the right to each and every domain? How many staff have Nominet got dedicated and trained for this?

These are the type of things that the consultation requires a second, third and even fourth sitting (after feedback, due dligence, economic and feasibility studies taken into account at each turn) to iron out whether this is a joke - or a serious proposition. By which time - there's no point as ICANN flooded the market....

Due diligence is what every shareholder should be asking for on every level of the consultation proposals - and it's exactly what we're not getting!

 

[websaway]

I thought I'd answered your question to be honest, but for the avoidance of doubt:

I don't agree that they're selling the corporate space for a second time if the registrant selection process is fair and gives the most deserving priority.

No credibility in that answer, it's nonsense.

 

[martin-s]

websaway, I think what you mean is that you disagree. I think there is a way that the most deserving could get the domain - whether or not that gets implemented (or implemented correctly), that's what's in question.

TinkyWinky - couldn't agree more. A single stage consultation was one of the things I was very critical of in my response. We definitely need at least another couple of stages before .uk happens if it's going to.

 

[websaway]

websaway, I think what you mean is that you disagree. I think there is a way that the most deserving could get the domain - whether or not that gets implemented (or implemented correctly), that's what's in question.

TinkyWinky - couldn't agree more. A single stage consultation was one of the things I was very critical of in my response. We definitely need at least another couple of stages before .uk happens if it's going to.

OK lets try from this angle, why do you think that they are not selling the uk corporate webspace for a second time ?

 

[monaghan]

For shoeshop, unless one or more of the shoe shops in question had a valid pre-existing right, the domain wouldn't be assigned in the sunrise phase, but rather the landrush. (Maybe a lottery instead of an auction there!?)

Pre-existing rights for me are:

* A valid and in-use trademark
* A domain registration (in use > evidence of existing plans for use > parked)
* A Companies House registered name
* Etc.

Not simply that it's your industry or trade.

If you adopt lottery, then the name will go randomly to someone
If you adopt auction, then name goes to the bidder with the deepest pockets
If you assign based on trademark / existing domain / company name you could be giving the name to a speculator who presumably would also be in the running if auctioned.

None of these routes is getting the name to the most deserving, just the person in the right place at the right time, and how is this different from first come first served which has been the case since the .uk space was introduced all those years ago when the admin was a computing professor running the system in his spare time?

Ignoring the point that I don't think we should be going up a level (I'd introduce more choice based on a few generics .shop.uk, .car.uk and so on) Nominet are telling us (and presumably if they tell us, they will also use this in marketing) that the direct.uk is more secure and for business, then whether true or not, it will become the default name of choice for uk business, no doubt there will be incentives for the big registrars to promote this message to drive sales and just as everyone was lead to believe that .com was the Internet back at the end of the 1990's as the average journalist didn't know a .com from a .co.uk from a .net or a .anything_else

.uk in my mind is flawed, if people really can't type .co in the domain name, then how are they going to manage .london or other new TLD's

If we as Nominet members sell off all the top level domains now, then there is no future expansion under .uk and Nominet will have to bid for some more UK related TLD's to get renewed interest once the .uk fiasco has settled down.

The only people I can see making anything from this are those getting financial reward from Nominet and the IP lawyers

 

[websaway]

....take years and years to process and require uk businesses to fork out £millions in fees and with no guarantee of getting anything for their money/time.

It's an insane idea in my opinion and doesn't sound simpler than the drs at all!

Grant

+1

 

[websaway]

I think the trouble with recent posts is trying to solve problems that shouldn't be created in the first place.

The end simply doesn't justify the means.