UK Charities Second Class To Domain Squatters

[Whois-Search]

And so the backlash begins...


UK Charities Second Class To Domain Squatters
The UK Domain authority Nominet have decided commercial comes before charity for the new .uk domain.
Published 16:58, 04 February 14 - Computer World UK

In the case of the Asthma UK charity, the .co.uk is owned by a domain squatter displaying advertisments on a generic landing page. As such, they are ineligible to register asthma.uk until June 2019.

The mental health charity Mind is also affected by these rules. Chris Cox, Digital Communications Manager at Mind, said:

“The restrictions on .uk domain names could impede Mind’s ability to expand its reach, to provide vital mental health information to those who need it the most. We have worked incredibly hard in recent years to grow Mind’s online presence, developing outstanding resources which are a lifeline for many. It is disappointing to learn that we might be prevented from continuing on this trajectory in coming years.

“We are confused by Nominet’s approach, on the one hand supporting charitable projects through the grant giving arm of the organisation Nominet Trust, whilst simultaneously limiting our potential for progress. It seems a contradictory move that sadly could disadvantage the organisations it aims to support.”

http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2014/02/uk-charities-second-class-to-domain-squatters/

 

[Edwin]

As soon as I see the word "squatter" in any article mentioning totally generic domains, I automatically figure the writer has zero credibility (as in this case).

There might be a discussion to be had regarding charities vs companies, but it has to be on that basis not as a knee-jerk response to the writer's perceived biases.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Its a fair point though - ask 100 people who deserves the domains in those specific cases and you're going to be looking at 95+ of them agreeing that the charity should have it.

Though none of these people will be considering we need a 'one size fits all' very clear rule... I still think they went with the 'wrong' choice there but it is what it is and I'm looking forward to getting some valuable domains for free

 

[Edwin]

I stand by my comment above - if the subject can't be discussed "rationally" then the opinion being put forward is worthless (even if it might be widely shared).

There are a lot of irrational, knee-jerk discussions going on every day - check the comments section of any even slightly controversial newspaper article for instance. If you bother to skim the wittering, it's evident that as soon as logic vanishes there's literally nothing left of any substance in the exchanges.

 

[websaway]

Its a fair point though - ask 100 people who deserves the domains in those specific cases and you're going to be looking at 95+ of them agreeing that the charity should have it.

Though none of these people will be considering we need a 'one size fits all' very clear rule... I still think they went with the 'wrong' choice there but it is what it is and I'm looking forward to getting some valuable domains for free

I can't see how it would benefit a charity any more than the org.uk does.
I can see the charity being a more commercial organisation if it owns the .uk, which of course would be better for job security or additional pay for the employees of a charity.
If it's the commercial aspect of a charity i.e. employment and pay that is the issue then why should they enjoy any benefit over other industries that don't enjoy the benefits of charity status.

 

[Retired_Member38]

As soon as I see the word "squatter" in any article mentioning totally generic domains, I automatically figure the writer has zero credibility (as in this case).

There might be a discussion to be had regarding charities vs companies, but it has to be on that basis not as a knee-jerk response to the writer's perceived biases.

I've not even opened the article. But you really don't need to to have an opinion on 'who deserves asthma.uk more - asthma.co.uk or asthma.org.uk'. Just because someone is using phrases you don't like, doesn't make that discussion any less valid.

Maybe he's just so pissed off about it that he's writing in a way you don't like. It doesn't make his input on the topic worth any less than yours, mines or anyone elses.

 

[Murray]

Why haven't people been complaining about the charities not owning the co.uk's over the years?

 

[websaway]

Why haven't people been complaining about the charities not owning the co.uk's over the years?

Precisely.
charities should be clearly defined as charities, it's hard enough already to know where exactly your contributions go, without further confusion. I believe a charity, if it wants to enjoy it's status, should have to use the org.uk.

 

[Alien]

As soon as I see the word "squatter" in any article mentioning totally generic domains, I automatically figure the writer has zero credibility (as in this case).

There might be a discussion to be had regarding charities vs companies, but it has to be on that basis not as a knee-jerk response to the writer's perceived biases.

That doesn't matter though really as Jo-Public won't realise or even care about the author's knowledge, credibility or expertise in the majority of cases.

As for Nominet's oversight of .org.uk holders - I think the decision was/is questionable (however, that's another debate)...

 

[Retired_Member38]

Why haven't people been complaining about the charities not owning the co.uk's over the years?

Because someone else bought them, and nobody would ever seriously consider suggesting what would effectively just be theft of someones property to hand it to charities.

Now that domains are being effectively given away for nothing... its obvious that its going to create discussions as to who's gifted them.

The charities are all loaded and wasting fortunes anyway... if they want the domains it'll not kill them to just buy them will it.

 

[websaway]

Because someone else bought them, and nobody would ever seriously consider suggesting what would effectively just be theft of someones property to hand it to charities.

Now that domains are being effectively given away for nothing... its obvious that its going to create discussions as to who's gifted them.

The charities are all loaded and wasting fortunes anyway... if they want the domains it'll not kill them to just buy them will it.

Domains are not being given away for nothing, they are a right of the owner, as would be the case if you had land that got planning to build on, but those arguments have already been covered within the consultation.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Domains are not being given away for nothing, they are a right of the owner, as would be the case if you had land that got planning to build on, but those arguments have already been covered within the consultation.

They are being given away for nothing though - when you bought your .org.uk, .co.uk, .biz or anything else there was no provisions in the contract to be gifted a .uk at a later date.

The nominet consultation has given people the right to these domains - but it doesn't change the fact they're being given away for (effectively) nothing.

 

[websaway]

They are being given away for nothing though - when you bought your .org.uk, .co.uk, .biz or anything else there was no provisions in the contract to be gifted a .uk at a later date.

The nominet consultation has given people the right to these domains - but it doesn't change the fact they're being given away for (effectively) nothing.

to give away suggests there is no entitlement and that it's in addition to what already exists. Co.uk owners were content with what they owned and the uk was an incumbrance for the co.uk owner. In order for Nominet to introduce it they had to create a right to registration. If they were giving them away there would be no right.

 

[Retired_Member38]

They're giving them away no matter how you cut it - you didn't expect to get a .uk domain when you registered a .co.uk in 2005. Now they've decided you're entitled to them... and charging you a fiver or a tenner or whatever it is for domains that could be worth anything from £500 to £500,000.

Its just semantics if you want to say they're not 'giving these away' - by any logical way of looking at it, they're effectively gifts. They set up rules, then gifted them according to them. No different if they'd given them away like Wonka's golden tickets in random chocolate bars...

Anyway this seems like another thread thats going nowhere fast, so I'm unsubcribing this one too and going to do some work

 

[foz]

.org.uk were always "second class" to .co.uk.

.co.uk to .uk is a intuitive succession.

 

[anthony]

.org.uk were always "second class" to .co.uk.

.co.uk to .uk is a intuitive succession.

There has never been a second-class charge, .org.uk has always cost exactly the same and .co.uk ever since Nominet came into existance. Therefore they have always been equal.

Appeasement appears to have overruled not only aged rights, but fairness too.

 

[foz]

@Anthony. I was only buying into articles headline phraseology.

.org.uk can stand alone as a meaningful extension for charities and non-profits, why such entities would covet a commercial extension doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Edwin]

This thread is starting to feel like Groundhog Day!

 

[ian]

In my view, .co.uk was always business, .org.uk was non-profit/charity, so they should really stop complaining that they are not getting rights to "generic dictionary words" such as "mind" and just focus on promoting what they currently have. I think .org.uk suits these organisations much better anyway.

As for squatting, not keen on that word either, but from my limited experience in domains, I was truly shocked to find just how many generic words are on placeholders by domain companies waiting for the right money; I understand it, but seems a great shame to me

 

[markb]

I can't see any issues here.

.org.uk = Charities
.co.uk = Businesses

.uk = New Business Extension


Anyone now complaining that a charity will not get the .uk domain, must not understand the concept above, otherwise they would be complaining that the charity should be given the .co.uk domain also.