There is a 'parked' .co.uk website registered to an company in Turkey
which would be interesting to a recently incorporated UK Ltd company
of the same name.

The single page has a few related links to other sites and a 'this
website is for sale' contact.

Out of interest I contacted them and received the farcical offer of
the site for $2800.  Hardly!  The .org.uk address is available a the
moment and is appropriate. 

It was re-registered at the end of 2008, does a UK ltd company of the
same name have a likelihood of being able to "recover" this unused
site at next re-registration in 2010?

Thanks in advance for any relevant material / links

On Mar 3, 10:34 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 6:00 am, me here  wrote:>

> > There is a 'parked' .co.uk website registered to an company in Turkey
> > which would be interesting to a recently incorporated UK Ltd company
> > of the same name.
>
> > The single page has a few related links to other sites and a 'this
> > website is for sale' contact.

> > Out of interest I contacted them and received the farcical offer of
> > the site for $2800.  Hardly!  The .org.uk address is available a the
> > moment and is appropriate.

Grab that ASAP.  Also, look at .com and .net.  And remember the power
of hyphens.  A few years back a cybersquatter was demanding 20k for
the .com version of a client's company name.  I suggested they
register company-name.com instead, which was available and cost all of
25 quid (including the hosting).

> > It was re-registered at the end of 2008, does a UK ltd company of the
> > same name have a likelihood of being able to "recover" this unused
> > site at next re-registration in 2010?

As others have said, there's the Nominet DRS.  Costs 200 quid, but
that's negligible to anyone starting a serious company, and rather
better than $2800!  Might still be unaffordable for a very small
outfit though.

> No, unless the other company let the domain expire.
> Anyone can register a UK domain name as they are not restricted.
> That is one of the major disadvantages of the un-restricted system, as
> an example to get an au domain you need some kind of official number
> such as an Australian  bizness number (ABN).

That sounds a bit unfriendly to people wanting personal domains
though.

There are restricted categiories of UK names, .ltd.uk and .plc.uk can
only be held by companies with matching names registered at Companies
House.  You have to provide the company registration number to
register one, and the name must match the company name completely, so
if you are "Thunderkitten Windows Limited" then you can have
"thunderkitten-windows.ltd.uk", or "thunderkittenwindows.ltd.uk".

Message-ID:
 from
Pyromancer contained the following:

>> No, unless the other company let the domain expire.
>> Anyone can register a UK domain name as they are not restricted.
>> That is one of the major disadvantages of the un-restricted system, as
>> an example to get an au domain you need some kind of official number
>> such as an Australian  bizness number (ABN).
>
>That sounds a bit unfriendly to people wanting personal domains
>though.

Why?  There are a perfectly adequate TLDs for personal domains..me.uk
for example. We had a perfectly sensible system .com, International
company .co.uk, UK company.  .org International organisation (not for
profit)  etc etc, but that all went out the window and now even my
accountant is a .net.  That should not have been allowed to happen.
>
>There are restricted categiories of UK names, .ltd.uk and .plc.uk can
>only be held by companies with matching names registered at Companies
>House.  You have to provide the company registration number to
>register one, and the name must match the company name completely, so
>if you are "Thunderkitten Windows Limited" then you can have
>"thunderkitten-windows.ltd.uk", or "thunderkittenwindows.ltd.uk".

Never really caught on though have they?  Small wonder with the cock up
they have made with the rest of it.
-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
http://slipperyhill.co.uk - http://4theweb.co.uk

Geoff Berrow wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Why?  There are a perfectly adequate TLDs for personal domains..me.uk
> for example. We had a perfectly sensible system .com, International
> company .co.uk, UK company.  .org International organisation (not for
> profit)  etc etc, but that all went out the window and now even my
> accountant is a .net.  That should not have been allowed to happen.

Why ever not, the problem is that your suggested pigeon-holing of what 
could use certain TLDs doesn't reflect the real world scope of many 
who need web sites - I can think of one project that is in the planing 
stage that under your 'pigeon-holing' would have to use either a 
.org.uk or a me.uk TLD even though the site would not be restricted to 
  either personal content nor UK only information. The problem is that 
there is a general lack of available names, not that there are people 
using TLDs that some think they should not be using. There should only 
be two or three basic TLDs that are restricted, .gov, .ltd and .plc 
(and all the country variants), all others .
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Geoff Berrow wrote:
> Message-ID:
>  from
> Pyromancer contained the following:
> 
>>> No, unless the other company let the domain expire.
>>> Anyone can register a UK domain name as they are not restricted.
>>> That is one of the major disadvantages of the un-restricted system, as
>>> an example to get an au domain you need some kind of official number
>>> such as an Australian  bizness number (ABN).
>> That sounds a bit unfriendly to people wanting personal domains
>> though.
> 
> Why?  There are a perfectly adequate TLDs for personal domains..me.uk
> for example. We had a perfectly sensible system .com, International
> company .co.uk, UK company.  .org International organisation (not for
> profit)  etc etc, but that all went out the window and now even my
> accountant is a .net.  That should not have been allowed to happen.
>> There are restricted categiories of UK names, .ltd.uk and .plc.uk can
>> only be held by companies with matching names registered at Companies
>> House.  You have to provide the company registration number to
>> register one, and the name must match the company name completely, so
>> if you are "Thunderkitten Windows Limited" then you can have
>> "thunderkitten-windows.ltd.uk", or "thunderkittenwindows.ltd.uk".
> 
> Never really caught on though have they?  Small wonder with the cock up
> they have made with the rest of it.

... and the .eu TLD was entirely eaten by cybersquatters, and is 
therefore useless.

Phil, London

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:34:34 +0000, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>Why?  There are a perfectly adequate TLDs for personal domains..me.uk
>for example. We had a perfectly sensible system .com, International
>company .co.uk, UK company.  .org International organisation (not for
>profit)  etc etc, but that all went out the window and now even my
>accountant is a .net.  That should not have been allowed to happen.

Indeed. For example, .net was operating "properly" until a couple of
clueless morons came along and gave .net addresses to plebs, sorry,
the public - those being Enterprise and Virgin (IIRC) as far as the UK
was concerned. Up to that point, .net was reserved by a gentleman's
agreement for ISP's , HSP's, etc. as it should still be, then the
permanent September started (or continued) :-(

Now it seems to be a simple cash-cow game whereby every new TLD has to
be registered by everyone with a trade mark and/or company name to
stop someone else getting it.

It does not help the website operators. It does not help end-users. It
only helps the sponsor registries and ICANN who collect the cash.

In uk.net.web.authoring message <gqe3ds$qp3$1@news.motzarella.org>, Wed,
25 Mar 2009 20:15:41, Jerry <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID>
posted:
>Geoff Berrow wrote:
><snip>
>>  Why?  There are a perfectly adequate TLDs for personal
>>domains..me.uk
>> for example. We had a perfectly sensible system .com, International
>> company .co.uk, UK company.  .org International organisation (not for
>> profit)  etc etc, but that all went out the window and now even my
>> accountant is a .net.  That should not have been allowed to happen.
>
>Why ever not, the problem is that your suggested pigeon-holing of what
>could use certain TLDs doesn't reflect the real world scope of many who
>need web sites - I can think of one project that is in the planing
>stage that under your 'pigeon-holing' would have to use either a
>.org.uk or a me.uk TLD even though the site would not be restricted to
>either personal content nor UK only information.

Any sensible pigeon-holing scheme will have at least one category for
"none of the others".  A liberal scheme will have at least one category
for "I don't want to use any of the others".

> The problem is that there is a general lack of available names, not
>that there are people using TLDs that some think they should not be
>using. There should only be two or three basic TLDs that are
>restricted, .gov, .ltd and .plc (and all the country variants), all
>others .

An thoughtfully-designed scheme would require, except for bodies that
are truly international, the use of a country code for the top level.
Companies, ships, etc., would use the country code of their place of
legal registration, however far-flung their operations.  Country codes
would only be available for issue to nationals and residents.  The
second level should always have meaning; net, org, gov, leg, ltd, plc,
isp, sch, etc., or local equivalent - they could all be three letters,
or preferentially three letters.

We do not have, and are not likely to get, such a scheme.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
 Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
 Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
<snip>
> 
> An thoughtfully-designed scheme would require, except for bodies that
> are truly international, the use of a country code for the top level.
> Companies, ships, etc., would use the country code of their place of
> legal registration, however far-flung their operations.  Country codes
> would only be available for issue to nationals and residents.  The
> second level should always have meaning; net, org, gov, leg, ltd, plc,
> isp, sch, etc., or local equivalent - they could all be three letters,
> or preferentially three letters.
> 

How would any such system be policed, whilst it's easy to police .gov, 
.plc, .ltd and possibly even .biz TLDs due to there being official 
paperwork to back the application, it gets very murky once we move 
away into .eu, .net, .com and even .org type domains, take the 
"Example Company of London Ltd." it would obviously register 
example.plc, example.ltd and even example.biz but what would there be 
to stop someone who is working on behalf of the company but acting as 
an individual registering the .co.uk, .net and even non 'UK' country 
TLDs (assuming that they either live in or hold the relevant residency 
papers from the country and what about multi-national companies) and 
just pointing the the domain to the companies servers?

 > We do not have, and are not likely to get, such a scheme.
 >

Indeed, because it's unworkable in this age of globalisation, a 
company (effectively) based in one country can legally be registered 
in another, any effective regulation of TLDs would probably be as, if 
not more, intrusive than any state revenue and excise regime!

IMO it's actually more important to tackle the problem of 
cybersquatting before any reforms to the TLD structure/registration 
system, cybersquatting should be treated like spam and viruses are - 
as non of them do the industry any good.

-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Message-ID: <gqi71e$qh6$1@news.motzarella.org> from Jerry contained the
following:

>IMO it's actually more important to tackle the problem of 
>cybersquatting before any reforms to the TLD structure/registration 
>system, cybersquatting should be treated like spam and viruses are - 
>as non of them do the industry any good.

Well that's true because it's cybersquatting that has caused the problem
in the first place.

Far too many people are asking outrageous amounts for even .co.uk names
simply because at around a fiver a year, they are not losing much and
stand to gain a great deal.

One way would be to vastly increase the cost of squatting.  Genuine
owners with legitimate sites would pay normal rates. But a squatter
would think twice about hanging onto a domain at Nominet's normal rate.
(what is it, about £80?) The extra revenue would go to policing it.
-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
http://slipperyhill.co.uk - http://4theweb.co.uk

Jerry <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
> [...] it gets very murky once we move 
> away into .eu, .net, .com and even .org type domains, take the 
> "Example Company of London Ltd." it would obviously register 
> example.plc, example.ltd and even example.biz

I can't find any .plc or .ltd, so I'm assuming you mean .plc.uk
and .ltd.uk. In your example, the company could register
examplecompanyoflondon.ltd.uk; only "Example Ltd" can register
example.ltd.uk. Similarly the .plc.uk domain is also protected.


> but what would there be 
> to stop someone who is working on behalf of the company but acting as 
> an individual registering the .co.uk, .net and even non 'UK' country 
> TLDs (assuming that they either live in or hold the relevant residency 
> papers from the country and what about multi-national companies) and 
> just pointing the the domain to the companies servers?

For many domains, there's nothing to stop someone doing that. There are
specific exceptions (.ie, .fr, top level parts of some of the Eastern
European domains),but these are few and far between.

Chris