DCMS list of domains names affected by Nominet Direct.UK proposal

The request was successful.

Dear Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

Nominet is proposing to introduce direct .UK names such as BBC.uk, Culture.uk, Nature.uk alongside the established .uk structure of .co.uk, .org.uk, .gov.uk, .ac.uk, .police.uk, .sch.uk, .nhs.uk, me.uk etc.

The Nominet consultation about Direct.UK has (in addition to commercial questions) thrown up many questions around security, which are currently being debated among public bodies and organisations. A broad summary of the debate can be found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/in....

A copy of the Nominet proposal can be found here: http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/...

A list of articles published on the issue here: http://www.mydomainnames.co.uk/articles....

In the light of this debate and in the public interest may I ask that your organisation provide the following:

1. A complete list of all domain names managed, maintained, authorised or in any way paid for or operated by your organisation on behalf of itself or on behalf of any bodies or agencies for which it has oversight in any way. For the avoidance of doubt, this should include any domain name ending in .com, .org, .net, .co.uk, .org.uk, .gov.uk, .ac.uk, .police.uk, .sch.uk, .nhs.uk, me.uk, .ltd.uk, .plc.uk, etc

2. All communications (written or otherwise) and information regarding the Nominet proposal quoted above. This request includes (but is not limited to) any correspondence with Nominet, any correspondence between your organisation and other government bodies of any kind or any organisations in the charitable sector.

3. Information about any assessment or study (by internal or external experts) undertaken regarding any impact (financial, SEO, technical or otherwise) of the Nominet proposals on any domain name listed under 1 or its associated website.

4. Information about any correspondence or discussion (internal or external), between your department and any other individuals or bodies about the potential financial, legal or reputational risks to your department or any of its subsidiaries arising from the Nominet Direct.UK proposals to create names that are confusingly similar and could pose a security risk, e.g. resulting in misdirected sensitive email messages and phishing attempts on government domain names.

I look forward to receiving a response to this request and in particular the list of domains under point 1.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs A. Barrow

DAWES TREVOR, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

13 Attachments

CMS 226011
 
 
Dear Mrs Barrow
 
Thank you for your e-mail message of 21 February which I have treated as
an application under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("The Act").
 
The following table gives a full list of the sites that the Department has
obtained.  Some are no longer in use and have been redirected to the
National Archive. The domains listed under ‘Leveson inquiry’ are now
registered to another Government department but were originally obtained
by DCMS.
 
 

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Domain | Year of |
| | purchase |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| DCMS Corporate domain/website |   |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| [1]http://www.culture.gov.uk | 1998 |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| [2]http://www.dcms.gov.uk | 1998 |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| [3]http://www.heritage.gov.uk | 1998 |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Other domains |   |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| London 2012 Olympic Games | 2006 |
| [4]http://www.2012business.gov.uk | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| BBC Charter Review | 2003 |
| [5]http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk  | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| C&binet Forum | 2008 |
| [6]http://www.cabinetforum.org | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Communications Act 2003 | 2003 |
| [7]http://www.communicationsact.gov.uk | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Communications Bill | 2001 |
| [8]http://www.communicationsbill.gov.uk | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Communications White Paper | 2001 |
| [9]http://www.communicationswhitepaper.gov.uk | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Cultureonline | 2001 |
| [10]http://www.cultureonline.gov.uk | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| DCMS image library | 2005 |
| [11]http://www.dcmsimagebank.co.uk | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| DCMS image library | 2010 |
| [12]http://www.dcmsimagelibrary.co.uk | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Digital Television | 2001 |
| [13]http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Gambling Review | 2001 |
| [14]http://www.gamblingreview.gov.uk | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Golden Jubilee | 2001 |
| [15]http://www.goldenjubilee.gov.uk | |
|------------------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Levesoninquiry | |
| [16]http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk | |
| | |
| +--------------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Levesoninquiry.co | | |
| |--------------------------------------------------| | |
| | Levesoninquiry.org | | |
| |--------------------------------------------------| | |
| | Levesoninquiry.org.uk | | 2011 |
| |--------------------------------------------------| | |
| | Levesoninquiry.co.uk | | |
| |--------------------------------------------------| | |
| | Levesoninquiry.com | | |
| |--------------------------------------------------| | |
| | Levesoninquiry.net | | |
| +--------------------------------------------------+ | |
| | |
|   | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

 
 
I can confirm that DCMS also holds information within the scope of
questions 2, 3 and 4 of your request. However, I have determined that this
information is exempt from release under section 35(1) (a) and (b) of the
Act, which protects the formulation of policy and communications between
Ministers.  Disclosure would weaken Ministers’ ability to discuss
controversial and sensitive topics free from premature public scrutiny. 
 
The section 35 exemption is a qualified exemption and because of this,
the Department has carried out a public interest test to consider whether,
in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining
the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
 
There is a general public interest in disclosure of information and I
recognise that openness in government may increase public trust in and
engagement with the government.  I recognise that the decisions Ministers
make may have a significant impact on the lives of citizens and there is a
public interest in their deliberations being transparent.  However, these
public interests have to be weighed against a strong public interest that
policy-making and its implementation are of the highest quality and
informed by a full consideration of all the options.  Ministers and
officials must be able to discuss policy freely and frankly, exchange
views on available options and understand their possible implications. 
The candour of all involved would be affected by their assessment of
whether the content of the discussions will be disclosed prematurely. 
 
If discussions were routinely made public there is a risk that Ministers
may feel inhibited from being frank and candid with one another.  As a
result the quality of debate underlying collective decision making would
decline, leading to less informed and poorer decision making.  Taking into
account all the circumstances of this case, I have concluded that the
balance of the public interest favours withholding some of the information
within the scope of your request.
 
However, in respect of information where the public interest argument is
not strong enough to justify withholding it, I attach the information.  In
these documents, I have redacted the names of individuals under section
40(2) of the Act, which exempts the personal data of a third party.
 
 
If you are dissatisfied with any aspect of our response to your request
for information and/or wish to appeal against information being withheld
from, you please send full details within two calendar months of the date
of this letter to: [17][email address]
You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to
investigate any aspect of your complaint. Please note that the ICO is
likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted
before beginning his investigation.
Yours sincerely,
 
 
 
Trevor Dawes
Freedom of Information Team
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London SW1Y 5DH
 

show quoted sections

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org