.uk When is the .uk arriving?

[cameronlee]

Hi everyone,
Does anyone know exactly when the .uk is coming to market? What is the best way to ensure that you get the domain you want?
Thanks

 

[namemarket]

They announced during the year 2013. It could easily destroy the value of .co.uk domains:

The Guardian published this: "It would add vast confusion to the UK namespace and lower value and reputation of the .co.uk domain as a global brand. Immediately after the direct.uk consultation was announced, DomainIndex.com lowered the rating of the .co.uk domain from AA to BB"

 

[DU]

Tell em what you think

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1025946/Nominet-Consultation-On-a-New-UK-Name-Service

 

[scithe]

.jp didn't hurt .co.jp

.us didn't catch on in the U.S.

why would .uk do much different? Certainly people will buy keywords, LL, LLL, NN, NNN and maybe some others but I'm feeling good that it will tank.

 

[Kate]

.jp didn't hurt .co.jp

...

why would .uk do much different?

The conditions are different. Anybody can register a .jp, you need a local address that some registrars will provide for you. But only registered corporations are eligible for .co.jp. Because of this and for historical reasons .co.jp is more trustworthy.

The danger would be .uk becoming the standard and the end users who are stuck with .co.uk would lose out.
In the current proposal, the .co.uk holders do not have automatic rights over the .uk equivalent of their domains.

If you look at India for example, there are now more .in than .co.in and .in has become the default extension.
Personally I wouldn't be happy today if my India-based business had a .co.in and there is no way I can get the .in. I would feel like I'm left out with an inferior product.
If I failed to secure the .in while it was available, it's my fault. But if I was not allowed to, it's a different problem.

 

[jameslawrence]

I agree with SdSinc here, .uk is a danger to .co.uk, but I think here in the UK we'll embrace it more than others which haven't caught on.

.co.uk always feels like .com's little sister.

 

[DU]

The danger would be .uk becoming the standard and the end users who are stuck with .co.uk would lose out.

Exactly; however, it's not quite as clear cut is it?

My understanding is that the CO.UK doesn't get rights to the .UK; however, a TM holder would.

It would be interesting cases where the CO.UK is not the TM holder and the CO.UK name has reached a TM level of association with the business without the TM.

(If that makes sense)

 

[siga]

It would be interesting cases where the CO.UK is not the TM holder and the CO.UK name has reached a TM level of association with the business without the TM.

There were a number of such cases outlined on a website
http://www.notagreatplacetobe.org.uk/victims/victims-explained/
Flowers.co.uk, Banks.co.uk, Money.co.uk, Finance.co.uk, News.co.uk, Gifts.co.uk, Sports.co.uk, Golf.co.uk, CreditCards.co.uk, Bunches.co.uk

 

[gc1282]

The requirement as proposed would not require a registrant to be a UK resident.

I'm from the U.S. and I only hold one .co.uk domain. I'm trying to understand what the excerpt below means (This reply is from Nominet) - sounds contradicting. Am I missing something? I feel dumb lol

"I would like to draw your attention to Section H of the consultation which outlines the proposed requirement for a registrant under the new service to provide verifiable UK contact details. We believe that this proposed requirement would reflect consumer expectations in relation to registrant location as well as a .uk site conforming to UK consumer law regarding security and data protection. The requirement as proposed would not require a registrant to be a UK resident."

 

[TheBaldOne]

gc1282 - what it basically means (as I understand it) is that their must be a UK contact for the domain name/site, and the site will have UK law applied to it (fraud, discrimination, libel/slander, security, trading standards and consumer law, etc.).

So an American will be able to own the domain or site, but contact information for the domain name must be in the UK. Any site site developed, whether owned by someone resident in the UK or not, will be liable for civil legal action through the UK courts for breeches of UK law.

Hope this helps.

(By the way UK law is actually 3 legal systems, that of 1) England & Wales, 2) Scotland, and 3) Northern Ireland - you didn't expect us Brits to do things the easy way did you? :O )

 

[Kate]

I don't think the real motive for introducing .uk is enhanced trust and security.

Because .plc.uk and .ltd.uk already exist and are restricted (unlike .co.uk) so they fit the purpose.

If you follow the money you will seldom go wrong

 

[gc1282]

Ooh that sounds about right. Thanks for your reply. But man it would be morally unjust for Nominet to do something like this. I feel for the people not from the UK who spent a good amount of money on .co.uks'. I'm a hopeless optimist, I believe there will be a silver lining. Wonder if a trustee service will be available. :/

gc1282 - what it basically means (as I understand it) is that their must be a UK contact for the domain name/site, and the site will have UK law applied to it (fraud, discrimination, libel/slander, security, trading standards and consumer law, etc.).

So an American will be able to own the domain or site, but contact information for the domain name must be in the UK. Any site site developed, whether owned by someone resident in the UK or not, will be liable for civil legal action through the UK courts for breeches of UK law.

Hope this helps.

(By the way UK law is actually 3 legal systems, that of 1) England & Wales, 2) Scotland, and 3) Northern Ireland - you didn't expect us Brits to do things the easy way did you? :O )

 

[siga]

I don't think the real motive for introducing .uk is enhanced trust and security.

100% agreed. The security part of the proposal was loose poorly thought out. Its the money they are in it for would be my bet.

 

[DU]

Means that you can and must follow UK laws on data and privacy including the cookie law no doubt.



The rest means you can live in London but pay taxes in Belize It probably just wants legal remedy and accountability... A local UK contact would not be able to use a border crossing excuse.

Im sure Nominet will invetigate the managed v open ROI later

 

[ioana_bv]

Didn't .in came after .co.in too? (not sure if I'm right) and google still uses google.co.in
.uk and .co.uk may stay together

 

[Kate]

I forgot to mention that the recent Nominet auctions for short (1 & 2 characters) domains that took place last year racked some pretty good money.
Must have been an eye-opener to Nominet. If they can squeeze that much money from a limited set of short domains, the potential for .uk is obviously enormous (wink wink).

Didn't .in came after .co.in too? (not sure if I'm right) and google still uses google.co.in
.uk and .co.uk may stay together

Correct, and .co.in is still used by many old companies. But now .in is the norm. And there are twice as many .in than .co.in (approximately). As consumers get used to .in, not owning the .in of your .co.in could become an embarrassment imo.
But the local market conditions may vary. In Japan, a corporation might not care about .jp because .co.jp is restricted and more trustworthy.

In Colombia, the registry promotes .com.co for local use (within Colombia proper), and .co for global (international) use. But I have reservations with that strategy. I think it's always a risk in the long term not to own the second level domain when you could/should.

 

[jmcc]

Looks like there is some movement on this. Nominet is not proceeding with the initial .uk plan:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest/update-directuk

Regards...jmcc

 

[4pm]

"Following our Board meeting yesterday, we are not proceeding with our original proposal on ‘direct.uk’ but we will respond to feedback by looking at whether a revised proposal will address issues raised in the recent consultation. "

http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest/update-directuk

 

[austainfgh]

I forgot to mention that the recent Nominet auctions for short (1 & 2 characters) domains that took place last year racked some pretty good money.
Must have been an eye-opener to Nominet. If they can squeeze that much money from a limited set of short domains, the potential for .uk is obviously enormous (wink wink).

 

[php]

I think .com after .co.uk and then others

 

[weebobby123]

what is the latest situation with this , will priority be granted to the .co.uk
say for example was your domain headphones . co .uk or earphones . co . uk would you be given first opportunity on the .uk ?

 

[mobilespecialists]

I would like to use my tool on .uk . Will there be 1-chars also available for .uk freely? Does anybody know when exactly it will be free to buy?

 

[AssetDomains]

Summer 2014 Details here

http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest/nominet-ushers-new-era-uk-namespace

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

It looks as though co.uk owners will get priority -- good news for those of us who have these.

http://domainnamewire.com/2013/11/20/second-level-uk/​

CAVEAT: Only domains registered prior to October 28 2013 — when the Nominet board voted on the proposal — will qualify for the free reservation.

So don't register a bunch of co.uk hoping for this perk!

I have one NNNN .co.uk and some good mid-level .co.uk (perhaps $XXXX).

I would think that .uk will be more valuable.

Thoughts on .uk?

*

 

[RazorNF]

"Over ten million existing .uk customers will be offered the shorter equivalent of their current address, with five years to decide whether they want to use it in addition to, or instead of the domain they already have."