Talk:Nominet UK

Registering expired domains

Probably worth noting that Nominet is notorious for registering domains that have expired. They even send the previous domain owner a written letter telling them it'll cost £x (normally something silly, like £120) to renew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.147.25 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? I've never heard of it and it seems an odd thing for a non-profit to do. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

Founder

Was Nominet really founded by Dr. Black Willie?! Not wanting to offend anyone, this sounds like a joke name...! zrenneh 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was founded by Willie Black. 62.69.106.254 swapped first name for last in an apparent attempt at humor. I've fixed it, but it looks like I'll have to watch this page to keep someone from doing it again.

*sigh*

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ipv6

article from the bbc mentions nominet UK and ipv6. [1] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominet Foundation

Does anyone have any information? As it seems to be talked about and not much done. --Abdulha (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Abdulha

Nominet Trust

For an organisation a major purpose of which is to be the recipient of funds that Nominet is not allowed to retain as profits, the Nominet Trust's web site is astonishingly opaque in respect of information about the size of these funds and how hey are are used. It is especially surprising for an organisation which has existed since 2003 and whose business is the internet.

It is also interesting to note the two audible / visible gulps by the Nominet lawyer in the video on Nominet's web site when he explains how Nominet will not benefit from the profits to be made by auctioning a new tranche of domain names in 2011 because the profits will not be retained by Nominet but, rather, donated to the Nominet Trust. (I recall a colleague once explaining how an accountant had helped him set up a trust to avoid death duties on his bequest to his children.

And yet Nominet has clearly chosen a new method to allocate the new domain names which seems highly likely to make profits, possibly quite substantial ones - as Nominet says in its own video it will be auctioning highly desirable domain names to the highest bidders!

So what's changed? Why has Nominet, which has never gone down the profit-making route before, allocating domain names on a 'first come first served' basis, suddenly decided to start auctioning to the highest bidder?

Something fishy going on? Does Nominet's change in approach warrant investigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.224.7 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Nominet names

The section on pre-Nominet names is inaccurate. I don't have an authoritative source to quote, but I was a pre-Nominet registrant. The complaints were not about having to pay for something that had been free (although that was also true). The point was that when Nominet was set up, one of the conditions was that existing registrations would be honoured in perpetuity. This agreement was honoured for a while... even a few years if I remember correctly, but at some point the organisation fell into the hands of people who didn't or wouldn't understand their obligations. The new system was pushed through with threats that failing to accept it would risk you losing your registration. I remember this personally, but I'd be really pleased to see a verifiable account of this time on Wikipedia.

Dominic Cronin (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: The number of domains has increased since 2012, up to 13 million as of 2019, making it the 4th largest ccTLD. Explanation of issue: Outdated information References supporting change:

Information to be added or removed: Nominet Trust no longer exists. Nominet introduced a Public Benefit programme. Nominet's commercial success funds a public benefit programme, which since 2008 has donated over £47m to tech for good initiatives. Explanation of issue: Outdated Information References supporting change:

94.8.98.97 (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Reply 23-MAR-2020

  Clarification requested  

• Please provide references from reliable, independent, WP:SECONDARY sources for these claims.
• If the COI editor receives, or expects to receive, compensation for any contribution they make, they must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use and the policy on paid editing.

Regards,  Spintendo  12:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This claim (the number of domains) does not require a secondary source and can be safely sourced to the company's website. See WP:PRIMARYCARE.

This is only an edit request form an anonymous editor and does not require a disclosure. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Confusion About Board Members

Looks like there needs to be a second article about the Social Tech Trust. Not only is this reasonable given the large amount of money it distributes every year, but the controversy surrounding the actions of Nominet UK (the original source of Social Tech Trust funds) and Nominet UK's charitable giving (which is not required to be towards Social Tech Trust, and is not controlled by it) do not necessarily implicate the Social Tech Trust. There are multiple sources talking about directors of these two entitites, some of them not carefully and I was confused.

Companies house which is clear there is isn't overlap in names.

Social Tech Trust has [these officers: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06578379/officers].

Nominet UK has this (soon to be updated) [list of officers: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03203859/officers].

Dan Shearer (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)