Slashdot Mirror
"Secure" Shorter .uk Internet Domain Proposed
another random user writes with an excerpt from the BBC about a new proposal to issue top level .uk domains, for a price: "The scheme would give businesses the chance to register www.name.uk as their web address. It would run alongside the current www.name.co.uk service. Applicants would have to prove they had a UK presence and pay a higher fee. A three-month consultation is under way. Some companies may oppose the move on the grounds they already face having to buy other new net addresses. Eleanor Bradley, Nominet's director of operations, stressed that the idea was 'not a money marking exercise' and that any additional earnings derived would be passed onto an independent trust to invest in improving Internet access and security."
More money racket, yay
Wow.
What happened to /.?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
With this short name top domain - http://f.uk/ would come handy
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This would work similarly to how the .com.au works in Australia. I know there's numerous work-arounds, but for the most part you need an ABN (Australian Business Number) registered for the domain name you're after.
I'm not a fan, but it has reduced much of the cyber squatting and other issues (sorry, can't site sources).
secondary level domains:
How about an Ltd secondary level domain? It would cover limited companies (corporations). Since this namespace is already controlled (you can't have the same name as another corp, AFAIK), you would automatically be allocated "your" domain name. That, or it would be reserved for your purchase.
So, you'd have britishgas.ltd.uk
In the US, it could be
westerntrucking.inc.us
Or
westertrucking.inc
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
"Any additional earnings derived would be passed onto an independent trust to invest in improving Internet access and security."
Ah, so what you're saying is, in five years or so when there's a big fat bank account out there earmarked for improving internet access and security, long after the original promise that it would be used for that purpose has moved out of the public eye, some bureaucrat will redirect the funds to some other public works project. Let's be honest here: Everybody talks about improving internet access and security, but how much of the money set aside for actually doing it, er, actually does it? Look at the sad state of affairs as it sits today, then realize that every broken security model, application, and piss-poor internet feed was created with the promise of being far more than it turned out to be.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Sure, having the simpler .uk TLD makes sense, but charging extra for it is pretty clearly a cash grab. The explanation for the higher fee is transparent BS.
If my company is in the EU, but not the UK, I can't get a ".uk" domain name? Doesn't that violate EU rules?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Theoretically, all country codes, including 'co.uk', should be policed and only given out to residents. Hell, I remember in the mid-90's when I felt ethically conflicted because I was registering a .net domain and I wasn't running a network. ICANN hasn't properly administered the TLDs since day one.
But sure, why not? The USA has a '.us' domain (whose owner info, by the way, cannot be anonymized), so I don't see why the UK shouldn't have one.
i had the same idea, just with something else, I wish i had mod points.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
One thing to watch for is that browsers will treat anything.uk as a tld. If you register myco.uk you will not be able to share cookies between myco.uk, accounts.myco.uk, and presentations.myco.uk in the same way that you could with the ...myco.co.uk addresses.
The current .uk structure is clear, simple, and very well understood by domain owners and the general public.
Exactly, I predict a lot of "silly" registrations that domain name companies will convince you that you must have; "england.uk", "scotland.uk", "wales.uk", "gb.uk", "uk.uk", "com.uk", and "xxx.uk" to name a few.
This will be chaotic. End-user confusion or fraud will occur when WHATEVER.co.uk and WHATEVER.uk are owned by different people/organisations. Say, when the .uk domain is acquired by someone who accuses another of domain-squatting on the co.uk equivalent.
Also, the notes say that the extra costs will be used for: "[D]aily monitoring for malicious software and viruses" - monitoring of what, exactly? All pages of all web sites on all subdomains?
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
So now the general public will have a false sense of security with sites labeled as secure just because they have been scanned for 'known' malware. And what happens when their scanning technology generates false positives, who is going to take responsibility for lost business and reputation from having your site flagged as a security risk to visitors ? It is not nominets place to police the internet.
It does not matter if you are located in the UK or not, we live in a global economy and many corporations operate in many countries without a physical presence in that country, having a site customised for each region. What is important is protecting the domain system from cybersquatter's and domain hoarders that mess up the domain system for genuine users. The increased price is welcome as it goes some way towards making the domain prospecting business model unsustainable. But it needs to go further making it harder for cybersquatter's to register names that are trademarked.
One of the rules is that you are not permitted to sell third-level domains (3LD) underneath a second-level domain (2LD) in the proposed plan.
While I don't understand the point of this comment, I will bite. *.ca is open in the same was of *.com, *.net, *.org, *.info, and so on and so forth.
Back in the day *.ca used to offer the two-char code for each of the provinces/territories as second level domains, eg: *.bc.ca for British Coloumbia, *.on.ca for Ontario. However this model has been abandoned and new registrations for the second leve TLD's are no longer accepted. Previously registered second level dot CA's are protected in that if I want to register crazydomain.ca but crazydomain.on.ca is already registered, the top level domain cannot be registered. It may be possible if you can prove you are not a direct competitor to crazydomain.on.ca, trying to steal visitors away (anti-competitive), but that sounds like a lot of work and a total pain.
Disclaimer: I am Canadian and own a handful of *.ca domain names. That's about it.
Why is that so silly? The .com has become virtually meaningless. It's just an indicator that something is on the internet. The "lets have TLDs for everything" policy is basically a plan to eliminate the redundant .com.
.co part of the UK domain is pointless. Why bother to have it at all? It's not being used the way it was intended.
Similarly the
I'm guessing it's not possible to require companies to have UK presence, given laws in EU. Even if it was allowed I must say it seems like a pretty feeble goal to set as well, there are always work around if you got money.
Nominet is proposing to prohibit successful direct.uk applicants from reselling sub-domains created at the third level. Registrants will still be permitted to create sub-domains for their own use.
Its stated reason for this restriction is
âoeHowever, we also wish to ensure the integrity of the direct.uk space and to avoid customer and registrant confusion and would thus seek to minimise abuse and contractually prevent the sale of sub-domains by registrants to third parties.â â" Nominet consultation paper, p.11
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I hope they keep the .co.uk nomenclature, because it is like many other things idiosyncratic to that strange little island and its wonderfully unique people. When you see one of those addresses, it reminds you of the very English trait of liking order: tea at 11 sharp, queue up for fish 'n chips, and the domain name goes after the .co because it's commercial. God save the Queen!
Because you need to get interest from several companies. They want a .com. Exactly one company will want a .microsoft, and one will want a .amazon, and one will want a .google. They're not trying to sell the subdomains.
.co.uk and .com because they're companies. They do for marketing reasons. To most people it simply means "internet". So why bother with it at all?
The "rational domain name system" would be rational if people used it the way it was. But they don't! And there's no way to to make them. Nor should they. Technology should adapt to how people want to use it, we shouldn't force people to adapt to the technology.
People don't go for
Why not? why is it so much better to pollute the second level namespace?
The companies that can distinguish themselves from arbitrary domains benefit. Also the people who want to avoid domain name squatters. It's not about selling the subdomains. In fact they're actively preventing that.
They won't. They'll have at most, two! .company and .company.uk. If it catches on, they can eventually ditch the .com, and certainly all the other stupid tlds.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It was possible to register the same name with a different province but the original owner would have to give you written permission first so it was less likely to occur. I can find a few examples where two different companies did get their provincial level domain and now one of them has claimed the second level domain. But it's very rare. Most of the time if another company wanted to register the domain in their province and the system told them it was unavailable they wouldn't pursue it further and try to get permission, they would just pick something else.
So yes, owning mydomain.ab.ca used to mean that the system would not allow anyone else to register mydomain.bc.ca or mydomain.ca. They used to require proof that your corporation was registered nationwide before they would let you use the second level national domain but they would reserve all variations on second and third levels of your domain name automatically. When the system switched to putting all domains at the second level then most of those provincial domain name owners got their second level name registered. They can keep the historical old one and keep paying for it or let it expire and only keep the second level version. There was no discount or extra costs for second or third level domains. They never tried to kick up the costs to register the second level domains.
Maybe the UK could handle their second level domains the same way? I mean they still get the extra money from people who decide to keep both versions but at least they are not raising the pricing.
for the cook islands is .co.ck