here we go .UK

[eBranding.com.au]

so offtap, has the money left your account? or is that also pending?

tim

I'd also be keen to know if the domains you registered still showing as available to register? Would you be happy to share an example domain or two?

 

[Offtap]

Morning guys - last night went like this.

I received emails saying only the right holder could buy the domain - 400 times.

I replied to each saying I was not the rights holder.

This morning I received emails saying the orders were cancelled and the money is being refunded.

"Unfortunately, you cannot register the .uk domain since it is reserved for the owner of the .co.uk/.org.uk domain. You must be the owner of the .co.uk/.org.uk domain to own the .uk domain. Your order has been refunded. Please allow 2 to 7 working days for the refund to reflect in your account. We apologize for the inconvenience."

Crazy is still showing all the domains as available - which in itself seems crazy.

I have contacted a UK registrar and will convey their take on it, as it differed to the way this has been handled.

 

[eBranding.com.au]

This morning I received emails saying the orders were cancelled and the money is being refunded.

Sorry it didn't work out for you. I agree it's a crazy system and I'm sure you're just one of many that will deal with this situation.

There should be much clearer advice provided on both registry and registrar sites.

 

[findtim]

thanks offtap for the info, there is alot of time being wasted across the world i think. buying / refunding / emailing etcccc

good to here you are at least getting your money back

so in conclusion i'd say if you can find a co.uk in existance then the .uk will lay dormant for 5 years.

SO, it will be a busy day on 11/6/19

tim

 

[David Goldstein]

Of course, rather than speculating, you could read the terms and conditions or as Nominet call them, "rules". And yes, you need to have a UK address, but that's not uncommon among ccTLDs.

And stop snivelling. Nominet conducted research that found around "72% of businesses" wanted second level registrations. Surely a good enough reason in itself.

At the end of the five year period, I'm prepared that over 90% of registrants prefer the second level domains consistent with other ccTLDs that offer both.

It all seems pretty straightforward when you read the rules.

 

[findtim]

Of course, rather than speculating, you could read the terms and conditions or as Nominet call them, "rules". And yes, you need to have a UK address, but that's not uncommon among ccTLDs.

And stop snivelling. Nominet conducted research that found around "72% of businesses" wanted second level registrations. Surely a good enough reason in itself.

At the end of the five year period, I'm prepared that over 90% of registrants prefer the second level domains consistent with other ccTLDs that offer both.

It all seems pretty straightforward when you read the rules.

please correct me if i am wrong, your comments seem to reflect you are a supporter of this and perhaps if you had any say in .com.au moving/adding a .au only extension then you would be voting for it?

just so we get this simple and clear in one sentence, i am against this happening in australia.

you are ?

tim

 

[eBranding.com.au]

Of course, rather than speculating, you could read the terms and conditions or as Nominet call them, "rules". And yes, you need to have a UK address, but that's not uncommon among ccTLDs.

And stop snivelling. Nominet conducted research that found around "72% of businesses" wanted second level registrations. Surely a good enough reason in itself.

At the end of the five year period, I'm prepared that over 90% of registrants prefer the second level domains consistent with other ccTLDs that offer both.

It all seems pretty straightforward when you read the rules.

I don't think that's very fair, this is a domain investment/development forum where business people and investors come together, largely to discuss domain investment, which by its very nature is speculation.

I don't think they've handled the .uk release very well at all. Are you trying to tell us that the average small business will know all the rules when they try to register a .uk? They will face the same situation if the .co.uk had prior rights. Many people will be frustrated by registering a domain that is stated as available, when in fact it's not.

 

[craig.cumming]

I found that out the same way. I seen f1.uk was available while i was bored and playing around. I bought it thinking someone hadnt thought of it and was accepted then got an email 2 days later saying my money was getting refunded and was held for the owner of the .co.uk one. Theu asked me to prove that was me that owned it and i said no but why are they all reserved but havent heard back

 

[Lorenzo]

Hola!

It's not very hard to find out which domain is really available and which one is not guys...

Go to:

http://www.dotuklaunch.uk/im-existing-customer

And check if anyone has right to it.

Toooooooo easy

 

[Rhythm]

imho .uk 'launch' is an epic failure..

Other ccTLDs handled it much more intelligently in comparison.

 

[David Goldstein]

Ohhh, so Demonoid finally admits this *is* a domainer's forum. No wonder it's not high on the list of priorities of auDA board member candidates.

As for advising existing .uk registrants of the change to second level domains, I've got no idea oh how they alerted existing registrants, but going by PR material they have contacted all registrants. What that communication said I don't know.

And so yes, this is a forum of domainers.

And findtim, naturally I'm a supporter of second level registrations. I have been for over 5 years. Domainers, while a significant part of the registrant community for .au names, are a minority. Hard to believe but true.

Maybe the views of Stephen Fry are more relevant on the issue too, when he said on the switch that "nonetheless it has been a nuisance these twenty years or so" that .uk second level names have not been available.

It's an even bigger nuisance to individuals that have no space to go to to register a domain in .au. And no, .id.au is not an option. It's objective may be sound, but it's unloved with 1.61% of all .au registrations. Who knows, opening up second level .au may even increase demand for .au domains.

As for Rhythm's comments, well, you may be right, you may be wrong. Any changes to .au should not follow any other registry change, rather than learn from what happens in other ccTLDs. .NZ is another undergoing change at the moment for second level registrations.

 

[eBranding.com.au]

Ohhh, so Demonoid finally admits this *is* a domainer's forum. No wonder it's not high on the list of priorities of auDA board member candidates.

Actually, what I said was broader than that:

this is a domain investment/development forum where business people and investors come together

Also if we're putting labels on people, I wouldn't call myself a 'domainer'. I make the vast majority of my online income from developed websites, not domain sales - and I'm not the only one with a primary focus on development on this forum either.

I sell a very small number of domains, the rest are monetised or indeed fully developed online brands.

Not to mention that I have a career outside of my online activities.

To say that we're all just 'domainers' is a pretty short-sighted view in my opinion.

Back on the topic of .uk, I own a small number of .co.uk domains (for some of my brands) and I can tell you that the communication from the registry on .uk has been non-existent.

I think for the average SME with limited knowledge of domains, the current .uk system is confusing. Many entrepreneurs and small business owners have limited knowledge about domains, registries, registrars etc - so they will see an 'available' domain and think 'great, I can use it for my website'.

 

[neddy]

Ohhh, so Demonoid finally admits this *is* a domainer's forum. No wonder it's not high on the list of priorities of auDA board member candidates.

You're obviously a smart guy David, but it never ceases to amaze me how much venom there can be in your occasional posts. Surely you can get your point of view across
without sarcasm or personal invective? I think you'd win a lot more people over to your points of view if you tried "honey rather than vinegar".

Anyway, with regards your comment above, I can give you two reasons why auDA Board Member candidates should have a bit of respect (and recognizance)
for domainers, domain investors and associated parties.

1. We are not ogres (mostly!), and a lot of us want sound outcomes for the .au space. Therefore we're open to constructive debate and sensible policy decisions.
   
   
2. It's because a lot of us have two votes as to who gets elected each year. General members of the public don't unless they are a member of auDA.

I just had a quick look at the auDA membership list as 16th April 2014, and there are 127 Demand Class Members. Of the 127, I recognise at least 40 members who
"bat for our side". There may be more. In percentage terms, that's over 30%. Any political candidate will tell you that's a sizeable voting bloc.

To ignore us is not a smart move. Constructive engagement would be far better.

In my humble opinion of course.

 

[David Goldstein]

Neddy, it's because of the insular views of many on this list. The views of those on this list predate my attitude. Trying to get those on this forum, at least the vocal ones, to take a wider view of the issues impacting on all of those who use domain names is nigh on impossible. I'd say it's up to those on this list to be more accepting. The way people on this list have treated auDA board candidates is deplorable. And it's no wonder they rarely dip their toes in.

It's important that board candidates be aware of issues affecting the domaining community and take them into account. I'm yet to see a demand class member be a candidate from this list that be inclusive of views of business and individuals, registrants and potential registrants. That it seems nobody from here wants to allow individuals a space in .au (.id.au is not acceptable as nobody wants to use it) backs up my point. In fact, I'd say it applies to virtually all candidates and board members.

So to me it's deplorable "individuals" are treated as second class registrants.

And you Neddy, just like the rest, don't see the issue. I believe most candidates do think domainer issues should be treated seriously. It's just domainers, and I mean the community here, don't view all registrants and potential registrants as worthy considering.

When I was a demand class board member I took it as part of my duty to listen to all views. From my knowledge, my support of some issues from the supply side cost me votes when I stood for re-election. Whether they cost me enough to have changed the result I've no idea.

.au has been successful for a number of reasons. It doesn't mean things shouldn't change. Especially if there is evidence it is of benefit to all registrants. Not just auDA members of domainers. Look around the world at what works and doesn't work.

And demonoid, I refer to domainers as this forum covers largely domaining issues, or issues closely related.

 

[neddy]

Neddy, it's because of the insular views of many on this list. The views of those on this list predate my attitude. Trying to get those on this forum, at least the vocal ones, to take a wider view of the issues impacting on all of those who use domain names is nigh on impossible. I'd say it's up to those on this list to be more accepting. The way people on this list have treated auDA board candidates is deplorable. And it's no wonder they rarely dip their toes in.

It's important that board candidates be aware of issues affecting the domaining community and take them into account. I'm yet to see a demand class member be a candidate from this list that be inclusive of views of business and individuals, registrants and potential registrants. That it seems nobody from here wants to allow individuals a space in .au (.id.au is not acceptable as nobody wants to use it) backs up my point. In fact, I'd say it applies to virtually all candidates and board members.

So to me it's deplorable "individuals" are treated as second class registrants.

And you Neddy, just like the rest, don't see the issue. I believe most candidates do think domainer issues should be treated seriously. It's just domainers, and I mean the community here, don't view all registrants and potential registrants as worthy considering.

When I was a demand class board member I took it as part of my duty to listen to all views. From my knowledge, my support of some issues from the supply side cost me votes when I stood for re-election. Whether they cost me enough to have changed the result I've no idea.

.au has been successful for a number of reasons. It doesn't mean things shouldn't change. Especially if there is evidence it is of benefit to all registrants. Not just auDA members of domainers. Look around the world at what works and doesn't work.

And demonoid, I refer to domainers as this forum covers largely domaining issues, or issues closely related.

I'm glad you took half a spoon of honey before you wrote this post David.

But you still make some statements that are "wide of the mark". (I was going to say inflammatory but changed my mind )

Believe it or not, there are many of us on "that list" that would also like to open up the .au space and reduce regulation.

But my experience has been that "Rome wasn't built in a day", and it has been a series of small steps to get some changes implemented within auDA.

Many members on "that list" (and members here) have been instrumental in getting involved in panels in order to get these changes agreed to (though not necessarily implemented!)

I for one believe that .au will happen one day. Not for a while, but it will happen. And I'm not averse to that - provided of course that existing registrants of .com.au are protected (like .co.uk and .co.nz).

 

[chris]

Neddy, it's because of the insular views of many on this list. The views of those on this list predate my attitude. Trying to get those on this forum, at least the vocal ones, to take a wider view of the issues impacting on all of those who use domain names is nigh on impossible. I'd say it's up to those on this list to be more accepting. The way people on this list have treated auDA board candidates is deplorable. And it's no wonder they rarely dip their toes in.

David, many of us here support auDA and are passionate about the .au space. I'm a regular reader of your weekly update and I enjoy your work.

Some of us are already very accepting But, I agree with your comment on *some* members becoming more accepting.

If there's anything you think will help open up healthy debate, please let me know. I'd be happy to help promote it wherever possible.

.au has been successful for a number of reasons. It doesn't mean things shouldn't change. Especially if there is evidence it is of benefit to all registrants. Not just auDA members of domainers. Look around the world at what works and doesn't work.

A lot of us are indeed looking. I know quite a few members are very active outside the .au space.

I agree with Ned, "honey rather than vinegar" is the best approach. I think you'll find most of us actually want well-balanced conversation.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[eBranding.com.au]

Believe it or not, there are many of us on "that list" that would also like to open up the .au space and reduce regulation.

But my experience has been that "Rome wasn't built in a day", and it has been a series of small steps to get some changes implemented within auDA.

Many members on "that list" (and members here) have been instrumental in getting involved in panels in order to get these changes agreed to (though not necessarily implemented!)

I for one believe that .au will happen one day. Not for a while, but it will happen. And I'm not averse to that - provided of course that existing registrants of .com.au are protected (like .co.uk and .co.nz).

At this point in time, I don't believe there is a strong enough level of demand to warrant expanding the .au namespace.

With that said, I agree with Ned and wouldn't be against such a move - provided that effective protection mechanisms are put in place for existing owners, so they can protect their branding assets.

Also, the system needs to be effectively designed so that all users can understand the processes. This includes clear communication ...and simple things like not showing domains as being publicly available for registration, then cancelling orders because they're actually not - that's an absurd situation.

I also support deregulation of .au domains (.com.au, .net.au etc), in particular changes that allow for usage by a broader audience. Also, it would be good to have more flexibility in registration duration!

 

[findtim]

david, david david............ i just don't know where to start on your rhetoric !

i had a girlfriend like you once, all she did was talk and never listen, we would go out to dinner and i would ask her a question like " should we order the seafood combo or the tapas to start " ? and her reply would be " so my friend susan says that jack and jill are splitting up "

hmmmmm, yep, i think this basically describes all your posts in this thread.

tim

 

[chris]

Tim, this is a good discussion. Let's keep things on track.

You're working with a lot of businesses and building websites, what are the issues that you see? What is the feedback when you hear when you talk about opening up .au?

 

[David Goldstein]

There is no reason some more change can't come to .au in the next 12 months. There is a Names Policy Panel later this year, if things go as planned that will address second level registrations, among other issues.

If there is really an interest in change, work for it. Push for a better questionnaire and research into what Australian internet users want. What has previously been used wouldn't get a pass mark in any university research project. I find it disappointing corporates like Telstra and ANZ use .com. Especially Telstra as it has negligible interests abroad. Would they have done this had telstra.au been available?

Using existing ccTLDs as examples is important. My experience on the Names Policy Panel is I've had negligible, sometimes none, in trying to push for these changes. Lawyers attempt to stymie any change with no evidence to back up what they say. They don't go to their clients and say would you like this given this and this is how it would happen.

.AU is not the only ccTLD that is highly respected. There are plenty of safe, secure, respected ccTLDs that have negligible restrictions on who can be a registrant. auDA and ausRegistry do a very good job in ensuring .au is safe and secure.

It's nothing to do with domainers that I advocate the changes I support, but the changes I've advocated in the past 2 policy panels would benefit domainers.

I also don't expect ever to get all the changes I've supported. But allowing individuals a suitable place to register domain names (whether it be .com.au or .au) is important and opening up second level registrations would be useful. How the process could be managed to open up second level registrations should be debated.

And for heaven's sake, when anyone compares .au to .com, give them a belt around the ears. It's other ccTLDs that offer the most to learn from. And gTLDs and ccTLDs are very different.