.UK Announced

TinkyWinky · Jan 7, 2013

websaway said:
I think the format of the feedback form , the way the questions are loaded has to be looked at also.

It's a bit like asking someone about introducing the death penalty.

Please tick one of the following

should the execution be carried out by

lethal injection
hanging
electrocution

Please tick one of the following

should the victiom be executed

immediately
after two weeks
after one year

If you don't want the death penalty introduced, how can you answer the above.

That's why in one of my posts here I suggested that you preface EVERY answer with something along the lines of :

"I do not want the .UK extension as there is not one reason why it is actually NEEDED"

Dreadful form....! Deliberately dreadful form one would suggest, so you get the consensus of answers for something you know a large proportion of people don't actually want but don't have the option of choosing to tell you so...

You cannot complete the form without doing - which means if you don't want it period, then how do complete the form. A very very devious form that does nothing to show they are really listening to anyone.

Nigel · Jan 7, 2013

RobM said:
Shouldn't the first question be 'Do you think there should be a .uk?' If you answer no then the consultation can be left empty.

Had this been a truly impartial consultation then it would have been the first question - but the whole things been loaded. The timing, the wording, the exclusion of existing .co.uk registrants from the process. But it's so loaded it might be their undoing.

TinkyWinky · Jan 7, 2013

Nigel said:
Had this been a truly impartial consultation then it would have been the first question - but the whole things been loaded. The timing, the wording, the exclusion of existing .co.uk registrants from the process. But it's so loaded it might be their undoing.

Exactly - calls in the questionable "management and ownership" of senior Directors. If they can't even provide a simple feedback form - then straight away the feeling is of a rigged system!

Isn't this what despots do - provide a "free" election - with one candidate?

Stephen · Jan 7, 2013

How will the answers be used?

foz said:
Buried at the end, under all the marketing spin.

Some may have been sold the idea by the time they got to question 11a.

A superb example of conning.

The question 11a is:

Yes, as we have outlined above
Yes, but with different features to those that we have outlined (please provide further details below) - where they leave 3 lines for repsonse
No, not under any circumstances.

I feel that unless Nominet receive a lot of pressure: in their Summary and Conclusion they would simply change a few .uk features and back up justification for that with 65% (or whatever the number is) said to YES to .uk (as they voted option 1 or 2) and have made adjustments to the original proposal to take account of all valid views expressed and thank you for replying.

At the registar meeting in London the chair was keen to have a vote of hands to show "if .uk was wanted with adjustments" (but would not state what the adjustments would be) - the vote did not happen as to try to balance that vote I requested a vote "who would accept .uk as proposed by Nominet" to which I believe nobody would have voted for not even Nominet staff.
Anyway the chair then decided not to hold any vote!

STILL TIME to send a few more comments to Nominet.

Edwin · Jan 7, 2013

RobM said:
Shouldn't the first question be 'Do you think there should be a .uk?' If you answer no then the consultation can be left empty.

I can't help feeling this is a bit like asking what a unicorn's favourite food is - you have to agree with unicorns existing to answer the question.

Yes, that point has been made many times, including face-to-face with Nominet (no satisfactory answer was forthcoming from them).

That's why in the f-2-f sessions we hijacked the agenda and made sure that debating the "should there be a .uk" question was first before anything else (they wanted to talk about security first or some such nonsense)

Nigel · Jan 7, 2013

Stephen said:
The question 11a is:

At the registar meeting in London the chair was keen to have a vote of hands to show "if .uk was wanted with adjustments" (but would not state what the adjustments would be) - the vote did not happen as to try to balance that vote I requested a vote "who would accept .uk as proposed by Nominet" to which I believe nobody would have voted for not even Nominet staff.
Anyway the chair then decided not to hold any vote!

Well you certainly scuppered their plans there Stephen!

websaway · Jan 7, 2013

7a. Should a new direct.uk service follow the existing rules as outlined above, or should it be more restrictive so that certain names or character combinations are not made available for registration?
• Yes, it should follow the rules outlined
• No, there should be more restrictions
• Don't Know

Wonder how the calculations of the responses to this question will be viewed.
There is no facility to comment.

aZooZa · Jan 7, 2013

My take on this to facilitate minimum expenditure by Nominet and to keep the second level virgin possibly for geos etc. like Canada have done, instead of frittering the opportunity and namespace away :

sec.uk
wls.uk
sco.uk
ni.uk

Play with the above as you will but it's a basic solution that ain't gonna piss off a lot of people.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

mally · Jan 7, 2013

Anyone care to get the BBC involved?

Rip Off Britain
BBC Quay House
MediacityUK
Salford
M50 2QH

Seems unfair that nominet sold of at auction the 2 letter .co.uk and then a year later propose the .uk totally devaluing the .co.uk

websaway · Jan 7, 2013

websaway said:
7a. Should a new direct.uk service follow the existing rules as outlined above, or should it be more restrictive so that certain names or character combinations are not made available for registration?
• Yes, it should follow the rules outlined
• No, there should be more restrictions
• Don't Know

Wonder how the calculations of the responses to this question will be viewed.
There is no facility to comment.

My point being that would the result read 95% of people thought that there should be no more restrictions other than those outlined and Is that a 95% yes to .uk vote.

aZooZa · Jan 7, 2013

In reality, it would have made mainstream media by now. The truth is that it's not a big deal to the average Joe. Nominet have been clever with the whole process but I have a feeling that a court challenge will go against them especially with their weak and ill-founded stance regarding the premise of not being able to contact the existing registrant base due to privacy concerns which is absolutely irresponsible and without foundation.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

Nigel · Jan 7, 2013

Rip Off Nominet

mally said:
Anyone care to get the BBC involved?

Rip Off Britain
BBC Quay House
MediacityUK
Salford
M50 2QH

Seems unfair that nominet sold of at auction the 2 letter .co.uk and then a year later propose the .uk totally devaluing the .co.uk

I think if one of the those 'winners' from the 2011 auction contacted them then the story could be taken up. It could be a massive story - The way nominet pumped up .co.uk over the years, attending domainer events, all the literature and website agreatplacetobe.co.uk, culminating in a domainer like commercial auction raising £3m which they then give away, then followed up a year later with a proposed alternative 'more secure' shorter extension with a consultation that doesn't even extend to sending those 'winners' an email. It wouldn't be hard to show the injustice of this situation.

foz · Jan 7, 2013

Nigel said:
I think if one of the those 'winners' from the 2011 auction contacted them then the story could be taken up. It could be a massive story - The way nominet pumped up .co.uk over the years, attending domainer events, all the literature and website agreatplacetobe.co.uk, culminating in a domainer like commercial auction raising £3m which they then give away, then followed up a year later with a proposed alternative 'more secure' shorter extension with a consultation that doesn't even extend to sending those 'winners' an email. It wouldn't be hard to show the injustice of this situation.

Domainers buying the short .co.uk domains. We all know what the journalistic angle would be. Cyber squatters get their comeuppance.

Nigel · Jan 7, 2013

foz said:
Domainers buying the short .co.uk domains. We all know what the journalistic angle would be. Cyber squatters get their comeuppance.

They weren't all domainers though - I would imagine that there are a lot of businesses and organisations who now (if they've found out!) bitterly regret winning that auction. Look at winner of hr - Professional organisation/trade body using the short domain to redirect to their main site.

foz · Jan 7, 2013

Nigel said:
They weren't all domainers though - I would imagine that there are a lot of businesses and organisations who now (if they've found out!) bitterly regret winning that auction. Look at winner of hr - Professional organisation/trade body using the short domain to redirect to their main site.

True, would say ~70% went to domainers.

The hundreds of millions spent by buyers in the aftermarket over the years on .co.uk would make the short domain auctions look very humble.

Stephen · Jan 7, 2013

Before 5.30 today

Nominet will be taking down the online form for .uk feedback at 5.30 this evening - so for those who have waited to hear the aurguments and then decide, you don't have much time to make your views heard.

p.s it takes over an hour to fill in the form!

Systreg · Jan 7, 2013

I filled in the online form last night.

Stephen said:
p.s it takes over an hour to fill in the form!

It took me no more than 10 minutes, I didn't bother ticking most of the boxes, instead I just pasted the same thing in to each comment box, which is what I copied from this topic, which said: