<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on ICANN and Nominet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/</link>
	<description>News and views on domain names, the Internet and life in general</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:11:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Leo</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/comment-page-1/#comment-5827</link>
		<dc:creator>Leo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:55:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/#comment-5827</guid>
		<description>I have no idea what proportion of registered domains have real web sites, but remember that there is more to the Internet than the web.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have no idea what proportion of registered domains have real web sites, but remember that there is more to the Internet than the web.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/comment-page-1/#comment-5826</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:33:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/#comment-5826</guid>
		<description>Sebastien: thanks for your reply.

You&#039;re right, but the issue is that abc lawyers would want abc.co.uk and abc.law.uk. Unless you strictly limit people within SLDs, you get the same thing you&#039;ve got with .eu - every company has to have one. As such, if .net.uk were opened up to anyone (for example) every Internet company would buy a domain (making someone lots of money!).

I guess in an ideal world, you&#039;d have a SLD for every industry, and you&#039;d make sure that only people in that industry could register a domain within that SLD. I&#039;m not sure what you do about having two A1 plumbers though...

With that system you&#039;re still very biased against Internet-only companies. Its incredibly hard now to find any free domains available in any of the unrestricted TLDs/SLDs. The way to solve this would be to find a way to prevent speculative buying of domains, I can&#039;t think of one though.

I wonder what percentage of domains registered actually contain real websites? 5%?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sebastien: thanks for your reply.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re right, but the issue is that abc lawyers would want abc.co.uk and abc.law.uk. Unless you strictly limit people within SLDs, you get the same thing you&#8217;ve got with .eu &#8211; every company has to have one. As such, if .net.uk were opened up to anyone (for example) every Internet company would buy a domain (making someone lots of money!).</p>
<p>I guess in an ideal world, you&#8217;d have a SLD for every industry, and you&#8217;d make sure that only people in that industry could register a domain within that SLD. I&#8217;m not sure what you do about having two A1 plumbers though&#8230;</p>
<p>With that system you&#8217;re still very biased against Internet-only companies. Its incredibly hard now to find any free domains available in any of the unrestricted TLDs/SLDs. The way to solve this would be to find a way to prevent speculative buying of domains, I can&#8217;t think of one though.</p>
<p>I wonder what percentage of domains registered actually contain real websites? 5%?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sebastien Lahtinen</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/comment-page-1/#comment-5825</link>
		<dc:creator>Sebastien Lahtinen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/#comment-5825</guid>
		<description>As chair of the .net.uk working group which didn&#039;t come to a consensus on this.. I&#039;d also point out that .net.uk is quite strictly restricted to ISPs/Network Providers who fall within a specific set of criteria. Also, ISPs (or Network Operators to be specific) have a lot more kit which several use .net.uk for.. it&#039;s not necessarily intended in many cases for customers to use (indeed the rules make it clear the SLD is for network infrastructure/ISP use.. not customers.. so customers shouldn&#039;t have .net.uk e-mail addresses, etc.) The working group did discuss extending the rules as who who was allowed to register .net.uk domains.. some argued that being a member of Nominet for example should entitle you to register them. The fact it is restricted does remove the majority of the defensive registration problem but as you said it&#039;s not that well known just like with ltd.uk and plc.uk. Either way I don&#039;t see any harm it does either. The problem with .com and .co.uk is they are very congested, so I would actually have no problems with say .law.uk for solicitors which means that for example ABC Plumbers could have &quot;abc.co.uk&quot; and Alan Bertrood Carter &#38; Co&quot; could have &quot;abc.law.uk&quot;.. There is a process for that in place. (abc.co.uk is already registered to someone else.. just a ficticious example).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As chair of the .net.uk working group which didn&#8217;t come to a consensus on this.. I&#8217;d also point out that .net.uk is quite strictly restricted to ISPs/Network Providers who fall within a specific set of criteria. Also, ISPs (or Network Operators to be specific) have a lot more kit which several use .net.uk for.. it&#8217;s not necessarily intended in many cases for customers to use (indeed the rules make it clear the SLD is for network infrastructure/ISP use.. not customers.. so customers shouldn&#8217;t have .net.uk e-mail addresses, etc.) The working group did discuss extending the rules as who who was allowed to register .net.uk domains.. some argued that being a member of Nominet for example should entitle you to register them. The fact it is restricted does remove the majority of the defensive registration problem but as you said it&#8217;s not that well known just like with ltd.uk and plc.uk. Either way I don&#8217;t see any harm it does either. The problem with .com and .co.uk is they are very congested, so I would actually have no problems with say .law.uk for solicitors which means that for example ABC Plumbers could have &#8220;abc.co.uk&#8221; and Alan Bertrood Carter &#38;#38; Co&#8221; could have &#8220;abc.law.uk&#8221;.. There is a process for that in place. (abc.co.uk is already registered to someone else.. just a ficticious example).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/comment-page-1/#comment-5824</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:25:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/#comment-5824</guid>
		<description>Thats interesting - I notice theres plc.uk and ltd.uk which I&#039;ve also never seen used. I can&#039;t honestly see a huge benefit in having .net.uk or these others, in fact I don&#039;t really see much benefit in having new TLDs or gTLDs at all, unless they&#039;re strictly regulated to contain only certain content. Obviously the issue then becomes the fact that everyone and their dog wants a gTLD for their industry - where do you stop?

So, my verdict is probably rather like theirs. That said, I wouldn&#039;t mind having a .net.uk domain :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thats interesting &#8211; I notice theres plc.uk and ltd.uk which I&#8217;ve also never seen used. I can&#8217;t honestly see a huge benefit in having .net.uk or these others, in fact I don&#8217;t really see much benefit in having new TLDs or gTLDs at all, unless they&#8217;re strictly regulated to contain only certain content. Obviously the issue then becomes the fact that everyone and their dog wants a gTLD for their industry &#8211; where do you stop?</p>
<p>So, my verdict is probably rather like theirs. That said, I wouldn&#8217;t mind having a .net.uk domain :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kieren</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/comment-page-1/#comment-5823</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:36:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/#comment-5823</guid>
		<description>I just found the report - http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9232_netuk-wg-jul06-report.pdf.

Its conclusion is that no one can agree on what to do so it&#039;s best just to leave it as is. A bit weak. Why not just decide on a course and dictate that it will take place in a year or two years&#039; time? That way everyone has time to adjust.


Kieren</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just found the report &#8211; <a href="http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9232_netuk-wg-jul06-report.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9232_netuk-wg-jul06-report.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>Its conclusion is that no one can agree on what to do so it&#8217;s best just to leave it as is. A bit weak. Why not just decide on a course and dictate that it will take place in a year or two years&#8217; time? That way everyone has time to adjust.</p>
<p>Kieren</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kieren</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/comment-page-1/#comment-5822</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:33:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/#comment-5822</guid>
		<description>Ah, there&#039;s a bit of history here. Nominet also runs .net.uk and, along with the original .net put strict controls on who was allowed to have a .net.uk domain. But in 2002, Nominet suggested it has outlived its usefulness and was going to scrap it.

This caused an inevitable screech of complaint from companies - mostly ISPs - running their servers (and websites) through net.uk domains but since then I have noted that nearly everyone has shifted on .co.uk domains. One example: my ISP Eclipse ran its entire infrastructure over eclipse.net.uk, but now has it all on eclipse.co.uk.

There was a .net working group within Nominet last year which discussed what to do with it. I think, simply, the suggestion was either open it up to everyone, or kill it altogether.

Aha - I have found it - http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/consultations/netuk/. The consultation period ended in March this year and I see (http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/wg/net/) that the working group has been wound up and the PAB has accepted its final report in July. So, presumably, it is awaiting decision from the Nominet Board.

I shall send a few emails and find out.

Kieren</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, there&#8217;s a bit of history here. Nominet also runs .net.uk and, along with the original .net put strict controls on who was allowed to have a .net.uk domain. But in 2002, Nominet suggested it has outlived its usefulness and was going to scrap it.</p>
<p>This caused an inevitable screech of complaint from companies &#8211; mostly ISPs &#8211; running their servers (and websites) through net.uk domains but since then I have noted that nearly everyone has shifted on .co.uk domains. One example: my ISP Eclipse ran its entire infrastructure over eclipse.net.uk, but now has it all on eclipse.co.uk.</p>
<p>There was a .net working group within Nominet last year which discussed what to do with it. I think, simply, the suggestion was either open it up to everyone, or kill it altogether.</p>
<p>Aha &#8211; I have found it &#8211; <a href="http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/consultations/netuk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/consultations/netuk/</a>. The consultation period ended in March this year and I see (<a href="http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/wg/net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/wg/net/</a>) that the working group has been wound up and the PAB has accepted its final report in July. So, presumably, it is awaiting decision from the Nominet Board.</p>
<p>I shall send a few emails and find out.</p>
<p>Kieren</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/comment-page-1/#comment-5821</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:19:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/10/02/more-on-icann-and-nominet/#comment-5821</guid>
		<description>Heres a totally offtopic question, but who owns net.uk and what purpose does it serve? A whois returns an error from Nominet, but www.net.uk goes through to a site listing a few other sites, and www.bbc.net.uk goes to www.bbc.co.uk...

Any idea?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heres a totally offtopic question, but who owns net.uk and what purpose does it serve? A whois returns an error from Nominet, but <a href="http://www.net.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.net.uk</a> goes through to a site listing a few other sites, and <a href="http://www.bbc.net.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.net.uk</a> goes to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk.." rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk..</a>.</p>
<p>Any idea?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

