Discussion in 'Domain Research' started by JMI, May 21, 2020.
I think it will at some point. I think it looks miles cleaner on .uk
and it would join a consistent form;
Only consistent in the countries that have extensions like that as you have;
Another reason why I think .UK will never be king (anytime soon anyway) is because it would lower Nominet and registras ability to double-dip.
It's easier to push the .co.uk and then push the .uk as brand protection etc, especially when there's lots of .UK domains available. Trying to push .uk and then saying you should also register .co.uk doesn't work aswell, as there's a lot of the .co.uk space used up - It somewhat works against them in reverse.
That could obviously change but based on the uptake of .uk domains so far, which is pretty non-existent, it doesn't appear to be going that way.
If we're really talking long-term i.e. a scale of many years, it's also worth thinking what could happen if Scotland were to gain independence. Does the "United Kingdom" even continue to exist as a concept then? And if not, what would that mean for the .uk extension?
Great Britain would cease to exist.
The United Kingdom might well continue as England, Wales and Northern Ireland - assuming those three countries remain in union. The United Kingdom did once include Ireland too so there is a precedence.
Jimmy Krankie won't be getting her way for a long time. I don't think I've spoken to a Scottish person yet who wants to split from the UK, it's just that they feel they have little option but to vote for the incumbent.
I think brexit was the nail in the coffin for Scotland staying. It was close last time, and having been there at the time I didnt know anyone that wanted to leave . I also didnt know anyone that wanted brexit but that happened.
I reckon Scotland will be oot first chance it gets.
Brave man that calls anything at this critical time in our history. Not sure most people have lived through a recession bordering on a depression. If the politicians make silly errors now or if someone decides it's a good time to invade a neighbour we could be into a time where nothing matters much other than survival. Most young people who have wanted to work have not found employment that difficult to find in the last 20 years. If there is no jobs it could be a rude awakening, especially for those who focus on the trivial and believe that everything is a human right. I think on one thing we can all agree, the current situation is surreal, I don't think anyone other than sci fi ists could have anticipated it. Strange days indeed.
Roger that. Numerous friends of mine have thrown that word about a lot lately. But it does give you a sense of derealisation. I've been saying this over and over but, it's as if I went to sleep one 10th September night in 2001 and woke up the next day to a totally different world. Nothing has been the same since 9/11.
But wait. This is about .UK domains. How'd we get here again? Lol
Although I personally like the neatness of .uk and the way it is 'what it says on the packet' - eg: it clearly states it's the national domain - my instincts suggest to me that for very many businesses, less informed people still regard .co.uk as the "official" and most important suffix, with .uk as an afterthought. This may change over time, I have absolutely no idea.
That said, as I have mentioned before, I believe .uk is better for various non-corporate websites - particularly in my own field, which is religious domains. Jesus.co.uk just sounds a bit "off" because of the clash between the religious theme and business/money. In contrast Jesus.uk cuts loose from that slightly jarring clash with business, and is a better match for a site about religion in the UK. Same with prayer, same with the Holy Spirit, same also with various other terms beyond the religious ones.
In most cases, it's the business domains that are more likely to generate the big money, and therefore be in greater demand, so I think .co.uk is likely to remain more valuable in most cases, for the foreseeable future. I say that, even though I personally prefer the compact .uk
For domainers late to the party, .uk offers the opportunity to invest in names that may still generate some profit. The likely release of hundreds of thousands of .uk domains this coming September (the ones mass registered without the authorisation of the .co.uk name holders by registrars like Fasthosts and Ionos 1&1) offers some very decent names likely to fetch £100s or in some cases £1000+.
Of course, Nominet has questions to answer on that one:
(a) Why they gave the go ahead for those mass-registrations, where the "registrant" hadn't agreed to the Nominet terms or the acquisition at all? And why those mass registrations were facilitated by a 'no cost' period, allowing the names to be registered for free?
(b) Whether any steps will be taken to tighten rules, to prevent any cartels gaming the system, and sweeping up so many names at the expense of other people?
Anyway, I think .co.uk will generally be more valuable than .uk for the coming years.
One other thought crosses my mind: will those hundreds of thousands of free .uk domains be attributed to Fasthosts and Ionos 1&1 when it comes to calculating the weighted voting rights in the coming NED election? Technically they will have just passed their renewal date at that stage, but still be controlled by the registrars. Also, I'm not clear what the ceiling is (if any) when it comes to weighted votes.
There is also another possibility, which I'm waiting to see the outcome of, having spoken to the Fasthosts rep at the Members' Lunch in Birmingham. I fronted him on the question of whether they would release all those names, and he was frank enough to say that was something they were reviewing and they hadn't made up their minds. I suspect they will - because of the negative PR effects of trying to monetise the 'land grab' last year - but when I spoke to him, that was not a foregone conclusion. There are various other registrars who took the same approach as Fasthosts. Will they all release those .uk domains?
In my view, returning to the original post, the best way of promoting .uk as a suffix with value, is if domains actually get developed into sites that the public access. If the majority of .uk domains get warehoused, awaiting a random purchase at the desired price, then in one sense .uk becomes a kind of graveyard of mostly unused domains, or domains just used to point to the existing .co.uk
That doesn't make .uk look like the primary suffix.
That's an interesting point actually when you put in the contrast of religious things etc. Can certainly see a massive argument for Jesus.uk over jesus.co.uk for example.
Are we looking at that with domain extension knowledge though? We know what .co.uk means. The average person doesn't have a clue what .co.uk or .com for that matter means. They just know it as the thing that goes at the end of a website address. I've never heard an average person say "Why are they using .co.uk when they're not a company? They should be using .uk"
Maybe the .co.uk .uk debate only holds value/meaning to the person registering them and not the users visiting the sites?
There's no denying .co.uk is just the known extension in the UK. For whatever reason; even if just habit. You have to question what would change that habit.
I've seen this dilemma recently where I've been getting hundreds of emails to one of my .co.uk domains when they were clearly supposed to be emailing .gov.uk and .ac.uk - A lot of people in the UK still hear a domain ending .uk and think oh .co.uk
Perhaps the .co part of .co.uk meaning company or commercial and .UK sits better with them?
They can use existing .scot or create .jock
Separate names with a comma.