.UK Announced

[Stephen]

fear of cybersquatting

...You're also correct that .uk is driven by the prospect of extreme financial gain. That doesn't mean .uk itself is cybersquatting.

There are so many real, 100% valid accusations that can be levelled at the direct.uk proposal that I believe it's a waste of energy (tilting at windmills) to try and pin a cybersquatting angle on the proposal, since it clearly isn't that.

I think the fear of cybersquating by many .co.uk owners will mean they will bid at auction for the equivalent .uk even though they may never use it.

So Nominet are using the fear of cybersquatting to generate more monies though the auction process rather than say looking at displutes on a case by case basis and awarding a domain to the more approriate owner for the standard regsitration fee rather than an unknown auction amount.

*** This comment comes with the usual disclaimers, that I dont think .uk should go ahead in the way proposed and only paired ownership/migration will do ***

 

[websaway]

.

You're correct that existing registrants are effectively (not literally) being held to ransom, because they HAVE to buy the equivalent .uk or suffer a real business risk. That doesn't mean .uk itself is cybersquatting.

QUOTE]

I wonder.

 

[foz]

Me too. Perhaps we need to build a fund to help this company to secure nominet.uk or will Nominet UK use their position to gain a competitive advantage?

"reserved" by them no doubt

 

[Nigel]

.

You're correct that existing registrants are effectively (not literally) being held to ransom, because they HAVE to buy the equivalent .uk or suffer a real business risk. That doesn't mean .uk itself is cybersquatting.

QUOTE]

Agree - we shouldn't get hung up about the literal meaning of cybersquatting. The fact is Nominet themselves used to warn about the dangers of someone registering similar domains. But they then put forward the proposal to have two similar, competing, commercial domains - .uk and .co.uk. It's obvious that the .uk registrant will feel superior to the existing .co.uk registrant. It's obvious that many .uk registrants will be looking to profit from the existing .co.uk registrants in terms of traffic and value of a resale. Not literal cybersquatting - perfectly legal - after all Nominet are allowing it. But this type of scenario is something Nominet used to warn us about. But now they want to profit from it.

 

[willbon]

Not wanting to digress too much....but..

Does anyone know what was discussed at Nominet about future direction / more capacity when the original .co.uk / .org.uk / .me.uk were decided upon?....

Is there anything in the annuls of Nominet that reveals whether they are following a suggested course?

 

[Stephen]

trademarks

http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/business_advice.php?AID=1488#.UQYzAWeDPhA
What an awful explanation. Any lay person would come away from that thinking any mark or "rights" gives a complainant the green right to pursue that line of thought on any domain registrant out there.

Agree with Edwin's comment:

However, the article could definitely be improved (the WHOLE truth) by adding a paragraph or two explaining the concept of generic/descriptive domains and the fact that trademarks on words that are themselves generic give much weaker rights than trademarks (or even unregistered rights) on made-up words and expressions.

If somebody would register "StopNominet.co.uk" with no financial profit motive and having that domain will not create mistyped traffic, so as far as the domain goes it is not cybersquatting is it?

The content of such a site may contain content that is illegal under different laws. So there is a difference between a domain and its use.

From the article itself:

The UK’s civil courts base their approach on registered and unregistered trademark law.

Is this not because it is large corporations that take legal action, I believe the courts would look at other issues for small businesses that don’t have a trade mark if they could also afford to take legal action.

If somebody ownes the short domain Right.co.uk (good catch by the way) should they be able to stop every domain containing the word "right" like RightMove.co.uk, RightDirection.co.uk etc?

If say somebody owned the trademark on "travel trunk" for a holiday first aid kit under a health trademark, should somebody registring the domain for use as a travel selling site or a luggage wholesaler be prevented from doing so?

These and many other situations should be included in such articles and Nominet should be representing a wider viewpoint.

 

[Stephen]

road plan?

Not wanting to digress too much....but..
Does anyone know what was discussed at Nominet about future direction / more capacity when the original .co.uk / .org.uk / .me.uk were decided upon?....
Is there anything in the annuls of Nominet that reveals whether they are following a suggested course?

Thanks back on .uk topic.

No, I have not seen a road plan or vision for the Uk namspace prepared by anybody.

There are various documents from 2004 (and comments in 2009) that Nominet considered .uk as an option by the then PAB but it was rejected 11-0 in a vote.

In the .uk proposal they didnt discuss alternative solutions to .uk, many have been suggested on this thread.
But Nominet have refused to comment if any have merit, as the standard reply back is "this is only a consultation" or "we are only gathering information".

 

[willbon]

Thanks back on .uk topic.

No, I have not seen a road plan or vision for the Uk namspace prepared by anybody.

There are various documents from 2004 (and comments in 2009) that Nominet considered .uk as an option by the then PAB but it was rejected 11-0 in a vote.

In the .uk proposal they didnt discuss alternative solutions to .uk, many have been suggested on this thread.
But Nominet have refused to comment if any have merit, as the standard reply back is "this is only a consultation" or "we are only gathering information".

It does seem strange that absolutely nobody thought about the need for more .uk space at the birth of the .uk.

However, Nominet has painted itself in a corner by releasing all the short names recently.


I for one don't believe they can now go ahead with it. After seeing the webcast from the first round of consultations with Invincible in it, I don't think any sane person could justify the release in any part or by any method.

There are enough names out there to buy and FTR to cope with the demand. Any shake up now will destroy Nominet's current good standing.

 

[anthony]

...There are enough names out there to buy and FTR to cope with the demand...

.COM attests to that.

 

[Stephen]

why?

It does seem strange that absolutely nobody thought about the need for more .uk space at the birth of the .uk.

Edwin to his credit did bring this matter up as the first point to be discussed at several of the Nominet roundtable meetings in London, much to the suprise of the Nominet management.

I think that the nominet staff just got carried away with the success of the short auctions, desire for growth and the panic created by the thousands of the new ICANN gTLD's plus the fear of being left behind as not being the 4th largest registrar in the world!

 

[willbon]

Edwin to his credit did bring this matter up as the first point to be discussed at several of the Nominet roundtable meetings in London, much to the suprise of the Nominet management.

I think that the nominet staff just got carried away with the success of the short auctions, desire for growth and the panic created by the thousands of the new ICANN gTLD's plus the fear of being left behind as not being the 4th largest registrar in the world!

I hate that word 'growth'... Has nobody realised that it's just a modern word for 'greed'!

I still don't understand why Nominet feels the need to be so competitive on the world stage. It's only competitor in the UK is .com and anyone needing a domain for recognised use in the UK comes to them... what more do they want?

Seems like their concerns are not following their original remit which I should hope was to serve the UK population with a namespace. Not serve the UK namespace.

 

[anthony]

Edwin to his credit did bring this matter up as the first point to be discussed at several of the Nominet roundtable meetings in London, much to the suprise of the Nominet management.

I think that the nominet staff just got carried away with the success of the short auctions, desire for growth and the panic created by the thousands of the new ICANN gTLD's plus the fear of being left behind as not being the 4th largest registrar in the world!

I think even more primitive urges can be added to that list!

 

[Edwin]

It does seem strange that absolutely nobody thought about the need for more .uk space at the birth of the .uk.

They did. It's important to keep history straight. Nominet didn't invent the .uk namespace, it inherited it in the mid-1990s and certain things had already been established then (like .co.uk and .org.uk).

It would have been prescient of them to push immediately for .uk at that time - and would likely have caused no issues at all given the tiny, tiny number of .co.uk domains registered back then - but they didn't. However, put in the context of the very early development of the web back then, it's hard to fault their actions AT THE TIME for choosing the namespace status quo they were handed. They were a brand new organisation just finding its feet and running the UK namespace on a commercial basis for the very first time ever.

I'm the first to point fingers at Nominet when they deserve to be pointed, as I hope my words and actions on here and elsewhere have shown. But I think it's also vital to make the distinction between stuff that "is their fault" and stuff that actually, at the end of the day, really isn't.

 

[Edwin]

If somebody ownes the short domain Right.co.uk (good catch by the way) should they be able to stop every domain containing the word "right" like RightMove.co.uk, RightDirection.co.uk etc?

No of course not. But if a company branded its product "Rhytte" and launched a site Rhytte.co.uk and then that product became somewhat "famous" it really would have a right - forgive the pun - to block RhytteMove.co.uk, RhytteDirection.co.uk etc.

That's the difference between generic/descriptive terms used as brands, and "coined" brands. The latter have a far lower burden of proof to meet for a "bad faith" finding to apply.

 

[mojoco]

Not so, 'Nominet' is Latin, meaning names or to name, it is perfectly legitimate to see it crop up in a lot of European languages!

So if there are other interested parties, it would be fair for Nominet to have to bid competitively at auction for Nominet.uk, and the other party could in theory win the domain.

 

[foz]

If Rhytte_co_uk's registration by another party predated the TM application, they'd have no show in claiming bad faith.

 

[Stephen]

gr8.co.uk?

No of course not. But if a company branded its product "Rhytte" and launched a site Rhytte.co.uk and then that product became somewhat "famous" it really would have a right - forgive the pun - to block RhytteMove.co.uk, RhytteDirection.co.uk etc.

That's the difference between generic/descriptive terms used as brands, and "coined" brands. The latter have a far lower burden of proof to meet for a "bad faith" finding to apply.

How does "time" and "success" fit into your viewpoint.

For example if gr8.co.uk which was registered in 1998 but has not yet been developed, got developed by owner or a new owner.

If that brand acheived success would all prior domains that commenced with gr8 that exist should be they be cancelled?
or only cancel ones not developed at the time gr8.co.uk become popular?
or is it only future .co.uk domains that start with gr8 should be stopped from being created?

This fits into .uk debate for me as trademarks are currently the central plank for Nominet in obtaining .uk domain and exploring different aspects of domain protection can further options and possible solutions.

 

[Edwin]

How does "time" and"success" fit into your viewpoint.

For example if gr8.co.uk which was registered in 1998 but has not yet been developed, got developed by owner or a new owner.

If that brand acheived success would all prior domains that commenced with gr8 that exist should be they be cancelled? NO

or only cancel ones not developed at the time gr8.co.uk become popular? TRICKY

or is it only future .co.uk domains that start with gr8 should be stopped from being created? PROBABLY

 

[Nigel]

In March 2012 Nominet's Annual UK Internet Policy Forum, at which Ed Vaizey was a keynote speaker, made the following observations:


".uk Policy and International Domain Space Expansion

As ICANN prepares to open up new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), several delegates voiced concerns over what this might mean for the global internet. One particular concern noted by several delegates was that there could be a massive scope for confusion, which could lead to an increase in cyber fraud.

A representative from ICANN highlighted that the aim of opening up new gTLDs is to provide new opportunities. He pointed to the .uk domain, which just registered its 10 millionth domain, as a brand that has become known and trusted since the country code top-level domain was introduced."

http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/58021_Policy_Forum_report_final.pdf


Note that the ICANN representative "pointed to the .uk domain, which just registered its 10 millionth domain, as a brand that has become known and trusted" and then consider Phil Kingsland, Nominet's Director of Marketing, commenting on the proposed introduction of direct.uk in a Guardian article just 9 months later:

"We believe that the proposed product would create a new, trusted online home for British businesses"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-net...2012/dec/17/value-secure-uk-namespace-nominet

So what was wrong with the trusted product that had just registered its 10 millionth domain?

And what about 'confusion'? Why is it Nominet launched a consultation that never mentioned the possibility of confusion between two designated business domains - .uk and .co.uk. I read in a Nominet report yesterday that they regard themselves as 'open' 'honest' and 'unbiased'. If Nominet were truly open, honest and unbiased they would have at least discussed the possibility of confusion by the launch of .uk. They would have at least given the pros and cons of such a move. Existing registrants can see the confusion, but the domain registry can't - strange that isn't it? Must be the pound signs obscuring their view.

 

[Stephen]

.uk pros and cons

......And what about 'confusion'? Why is it Nominet launched a consultation that never mentioned the possibility of confusion between two designated business domains - .uk and .co.uk. I read in a Nominet report yesterday that they regard themselves as 'open' 'honest' and 'unbiased'. If Nominet were truly open, honest and unbiased they would have at least discussed the possibility of confusion by the launch of .uk. They would have at least given the pros and cons of such a move. Existing registrants can see the confusion, but the domain registry can't - strange that isn't it? Must be the pound signs obscuring their view.

Nominet's defense has been ..... sorry I dont know because they have never supplied a satisfactory explanation or any answers on confusion.

Can you find a .uk FAQ that answered it?

One reason they consultation may not have gone wider to registrants and the public is that under the government guidlelines on "consultation" Nominet would have been required to add more content to explain the situation and background as the reader/participant would have less knowledge than the registrars they did contact.

I asked Nominet during the process to add such ".uk pros and cons" to their website during the consultation, they replied saying they were gathering information at this stage and it would therefore not be appropriate to do so.