.UK Announced

[Alien]

Yes I see exactly what your saying, like if the football club said what's the fuss can't you just accept the situation and sit on the other persons lap.

emmm NO! I didn't buy the season ticket with a view to sharing my seat with another. I can understand the other person not complaining because he didn't have the seat in the first place, anything is sometimes better than nothing.

Surely though this is more like Nominet adding an additional row of seats in the same stadium or a completely new section. This then offers purchasers a different angle of the match and extra seating to be part of the action? You're not sharing the same seat, you're now sharing a stadium which has more population space, viewing angles and room available.

Or am I misreading this....lol.

 

[Retired_member41]

Surely though this is more like Nominet adding an additional row of seats in the same stadium or a completely new section. This then offers purchasers a different angle of the match and extra seating to be part of the action? You're not sharing the same seat, you're now sharing a stadium which has more population space, viewing angles and room available.

Or am I misreading this....lol.

Lol what a great post.

 

[willbon]

Surely though this is more like Nominet adding an additional row of seats in the same stadium or a completely new section. This then offers purchasers a different angle of the match and extra seating to be part of the action? You're not sharing the same seat, you're now sharing a stadium which has more population space, viewing angles and room available.

Or am I misreading this....lol.

Maybe it's like moving the original seats further back and putting in a new set in front.... of which some are already reserved for the VIP's ... ;-)

 

[websaway]

Surely though this is more like Nominet adding an additional row of seats in the same stadium or a completely new section. This then offers purchasers a different angle of the match and extra seating to be part of the action? You're not sharing the same seat, you're now sharing a stadium which has more population space, viewing angles and room available.

Or am I misreading this....lol.

They can build more seats that's not a problem but in this case I see it as they are selling my seat to someone else or possibly to me for a second much inflated fee.

I believe that plumber.uk will be the exact same space as was sold when plumber.co.uk was purchased. I personally can't get away from that.
Of course when someone who owns plumber.co.uk pays £20 for plumber.uk he won't flinch ( providing he gets it ) but what about djsplumbers.co.uk who had to buy djs-plumbers.co.uk and now has to buy djsplumbers.uk and djs-plumbers.uk to directly protect his business interests ( which he may well have over invested heavily in )
He never had to buy me.uk or org.uk or ltd.uk they all had clear identities which never applied to his business.
I suppose the proof of the pudding is:

Does djsplumbers.co.uk need to buy djsplumbers.uk ?

 

[Edwin]

If we're really going to go down the stadium analogy path, it's like building a 10,000 seater stadium and selling each seat as a season ticket (i.e. the stadium is at capacity).

Then after a few seasons have been played, and everyone's got used to the stadium, suddenly "inventing" another 10,000 seats by strapping a plush seat to the back of each season ticket holder and forcing them to carry the new spectators so that the latter get a better vantage point on the game. These new seats are sold at a premium price under various schemes designed to wring every last ha'penny out of the transaction so that the stadium owners can buy a fleet of private jets and bathe in champagne nightly.

The original season ticket holders meanwhile are bent double under the weight and forced to catch the occasional glipse of a ball between the feet of those riding in style on their backs.

I'm guessing the original season ticket holders would feel that wasn't ever part of "the deal" they signed up to when they bought into the stadium!

 

[websaway]

If we're really going to go down the stadium analogy path, it's like building a 10,000 seater stadium and selling each seat as a season ticket (i.e. the stadium is at capacity).

Then after a few seasons have been played, and everyone's got used to the stadium, suddenly "inventing" another 10,000 seats by strapping a plush seat to the back of each season ticket holder and forcing them to carry the new spectators so that the latter get a better vantage point on the game. These new seats are sold at a premium price under various schemes designed to wring every last ha'penny out of the transaction so that the stadium owners can buy a fleet of private jets and bathe in champagne nightly.

The original season ticket holders meanwhile are bent double under the weight and forced to catch the occasional glipse of a ball between the feet of those riding in style on their backs.

I'm guessing the original season ticket holders would feel that wasn't ever part of "the deal" they signed up to when they bought into the stadium!

Joking aside, keeping it simple. They have sold my seat for a second time, they haven't introduced anything new except maybe giving my seat a different description but it's the very same seat and I now have to share that seat with someone else. I may be able to pay for my seat a second time for a highly inflated fee, though that's not by any means clear cut.

I can look at ways to overcome the problem, they having sold the seat for a second time, but I should not have to, I bought the seat in good faith, it's my seat.

 

[Edwin]

Joking aside, keeping it simple. They have sold my seat for a second time, they haven't introduced anything new except maybe giving my seat a different description but it's the very same seat and I now have to share that seat with someone else. I may be able to pay for my seat a second time for a highly inflated fee, though that's not by any means clear cut.

I can look at ways to overcome the problem, they having sold the seat for a second time, but I should not have to, I bought the seat in good faith, it's my seat.

No, it's being sold as a BETTER seat (in Nominet terms: more security, shorter, etc.). It's not the same seat.

The rest of your point is highly valid.

 

[websaway]

No, it's being sold as a BETTER seat (in Nominet terms: more security, shorter, etc.). It's not the same seat.

The rest of your point is highly valid.

Yes I agree, they can make the seat as comfortable as possible they can market it anyway they like but it's smack bang in the space where I sit.

 

[Sound]

Forget all your dads army football stadium analogy's the facts are its worked for other countries and it can work for the UK.

 

[websaway]

Forget all your dads army football stadium analogy's the facts are its worked for other countries and it can work for the UK.

So as I can understand where you are coming from.

Will djsplumbers.co.uk need to buy djsplumbers.uk ?

 

[Sound]

So as I can understand where you are coming from.

Will djsplumbers.co.uk need to buy djsplumbers.uk ?

Ask Them.

 

[websaway]

Ask Them.

I'm asking for your expert opinion.

Will djsplumbers.co.uk need to buy djsplumbers.uk

 

[Edwin]

Forget all your dads army football stadium analogy's the facts are its worked for other countries and it can work for the UK.

I work in the media and they are always hungry for any news story let alone one that you say is going to cost business billions of pounds and change the face of the digital world

That's funny, I always thought the media tried to back up news stories with multiple sources and real, verifiable data, rather than make everything up out of thin air...

My report (if you bothered to actually read it) is packed cover-to-cover with sourced FACTS from reputable sources that PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT that the transitions in all other namespaces were DIFFERENT from what we're facing in the UK.

The FACT is, .co.uk is much much much much more established as an extension than the corresponding extensions were in other countries when they underwent their own "transitions" and there are many many many more domains registered already in the UK namespace than there were at the time of transition in any previous namespace. Therefore what may have worked previously won't work here.

The above is fact.

Not my opinion.

Fact.

(Every single piece of data in my document is explicitly backed by attribution back to one or more third party sources - 59 in all. Follow the links. Study the data. See for yourself.)

Now if you want to continue to pretend that the Earth is flat, that's your prerogative - but you'll appreciate it's not worth anyone wasting energy on debating with you any longer if you base your reasoning on complete fantasy rather than reality.

 

[Reddy]

Unless you:

a) own a registered trademark and therefore could potentially pick up a nice, prime .uk domain, or
b) are likely to become an ‘approved’ .uk Registrar (with the potential to make money from the millions of new direct .uk registrations), or
c) are Nominet, or

I cannot really see how anyone else is in favour of the introduction of direct .uk in its current proposed format.


Let’s look a hypothetical scenario surrounding a typical company operating a website, say – anywebsite.co.uk. Assuming Nominet do introduce direct .uk as per its current consultation, what options are available to this company:

1. Do Nothing

‘I already have the .co.uk domain name, why do I need the .uk version?’
Bad Decision – the .uk could be snapped up by a third party (a ‘domainer’ perhaps) who may build a website/put up a landing page. In time, once direct .uk domains become more established, some people will type anywebsite.uk when they really mean anywebsite.co.uk, both for website visits and when sending emails. Plus, anywebsite.uk will be more secure (i.e. in the eyes of the public, more trustworthy) than anywebsite.co.uk.

2. Apply to register the .uk version

If a trademark exists (even if it’s a TM in some other country) for the term ‘anywebsite’, then the owner(s) of these registered rights will get first option to register the domain name anywebsite.uk. Our company can do nothing.

If there are no companies with registered rights, those with unregistered rights will go into an auction process. Our fictitious company may be successful, but would end up paying a higher fee to secure the .uk domain name.

3. Successfully register the .uk version

Let’s assume that the company is able to successfully register anywebsite.uk. Given the wholesale cost of a direct .uk domain name has been muted to be £20 p.a., the retail cost after VAT is likely to be at least £35 p.a., (assuming there was no auction).

The company now has to contact its website host to set up the web/email forwarding etc. for its new direct .uk domain name (another cost). In the future, once direct .uk domains become more widely used, the company decides to use anywebsite.uk for its primary web presence (by now .co.uk domains are seen by the public as inferior and less secure). Roll on more costs – website design changes, logo design, stationery reprinting etc.

4. The Status Quo

The current proposals for direct .uk are scrapped and .co.uk retains its place as the place to be for UK businesses. Companies are not forced into purchasing another domain name in order to protect their business. There are no rebranding, website redesign costs etc. For those who want or need it and if demand is there, Nominet could offer optional security features on existing .co.uk/.org.uk etc. domains.


So the ideal option for most businesses is Option 4. If Nominet push this proposal through in its current format, then Option 3 would be the best businesses could hope for – but this imposes additional costs on every business just to effectively stand still - mainly for the benefit of Nominet, a few privileged Registrars and some trademark holders.

 

[Sound]

That's funny, I always thought the media tried to back up news stories with multiple sources and real, verifiable data, rather than make everything up out of thin air...

My report (if you bothered to actually read it) is packed cover-to-cover with sourced FACTS from reputable sources that PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT that the transitions in all other namespaces were DIFFERENT from what we're facing in the UK.

The FACT is, .co.uk is much much much much more established as an extension than the corresponding extensions were in other countries when they underwent their own "transitions" and there are many many many more domains registered already in the UK namespace than there were at the time of transition in any previous namespace. Therefore what may have worked previously won't work here.

The above is fact.

Not my opinion.

Fact.

(Every single piece of data in my document is explicitly backed by attribution back to one or more third party sources - 59 in all. Follow the links. Study the data. See for yourself.)

Now if you want to continue to pretend that the Earth is flat, that's your prerogative - but you'll appreciate it's not worth anyone wasting energy on debating with you any longer if you base your reasoning on complete fantasy rather than reality.

The direct cost to UK businesses will be at least £50,000,000 per year, and associated adjustment costs could run to £billions

Were did you get this fact from then

 

[websaway]

The direct cost to UK businesses will be at least £50,000,000 per year, and associated adjustment costs could run to £billions

Were did you get this fact from then

Well 7,000,000 domain registrations would be £140,000,000
That's for starters.
Mind you don't even seem to be able to form an opinion as to whether djsplumbers.co.uk would need to register djsplumbers.uk so difficult for you to find any costs at all.

 

[Reddy]

Ask Them.

Sound,

If a friend of yours had his own business (djsplumbers.co.uk) and he asked your opinion on whether he should try to register djsplumbers.uk, what would you advise him?

David

 

[Reddy]

Well 7,000,000 domain registrations would be £140,000,000
That's for starters.
Mind you don't even seem to be able to form an opinion as to whether djsplumbers.co.uk would need to register djsplumbers.uk so difficult for you to find any costs at all.

Don't forget that's EVERY year, plus the true cost of a .uk domain is likely to be more than £20 p.a.

 

[Edwin]

The direct cost to UK businesses will be at least £50,000,000 per year, and associated adjustment costs could run to £billions

Were did you get this fact from then

By asking that, you've proven that you can't be bothered to read the report I wrote. I'm done answering your posts. What a waste of time!

 

[Sound]

No problem

I promise you I have read your report and follow you on twitter very interested in your opinion.