Deleting.co.uk RIP

[Whois-Search]

I know people are very upset about this (I am too, 4 years of work down the drain) however I would like to remind you to keep your cool and don't say or do anything silly.

This is what happens if you "intentionally" abuse Nominet's systems and make money out of it:
http://www.nic.uk/disputes/courtcases/ukinternetreg/

Of course complain to Nominet if you think they are in the wrong and have harmed your business. However what really needs to happen is a policy change.

If you really wanted to you could even put a valid argument in to the PAB for Nominet to release a "zone file" again. This zone file could then be compared by members to make drop lists or a variety uses e.g. keeping an eye on the hosting competition. However of course there would need to be some kind of spammer protection.

The email address is:
[email protected]

I'm also suggesting that as a PAB member with a registered conflict of interest!

 

[retired_member6]

I know people are very upset about this (I am to, 4 years of work down the drain) however I would like to remind you to keep your cool and don't say or do anything silly.

This is what happens if you "intentionally" abuse Nominet's systems and make money out of it:
http://www.nic.uk/disputes/courtcases/ukinternetreg/

Of course complain to Nominet if you think they are in the wrong. However what really needs to happen is a policy change.

If you really wanted to you could even put a valid argument in to the PAB for Nominet to release a "zone file" again. This zone file could then be compared by members to make drop lists or a variety uses e.g. keeping a eye on the hosting competition. However of course there would need to be some kind of spammer protection.

The email address is:
[email protected]

I'm also suggesting that as a PAB member with a registered conflict of interest!

You did two things wrong, showed days to deleting and tag holder names and they shut you down. That's harsh, they've put thousands of people out, slowed growth of the .co.uk domain market, put several dozen out of business (parts of) until they find funds to set up deleting two. Upset? I'm 'kin fuming. And the news must be right up nominet's harris as I aint seen nothing yet.

A whole level of domainers and a whole level of a service industry wiped out overnight and still no reply from Nominet. They failed to understand the reason behind the complaint which should have been taken into consideration and also failed to understand the impact of the decision, by their own action they have been more criminal than you will ever be considered to be.

And I don't know why you're even putting yourself in the same thread as that court case, are you trying to make yourself look as bad as them, you didn't do anything even close to what they did, use of two bits of data, both of which didn't need to be shown to the user and you'd still be up and running, a fact nominet could have conceded and allowed you to continue with the removal of said data.

If any of us knew you'd been breaking the rules, having obviously known the impact on ourselves (because we do risk assessment on the fly) we'd have asked you to cut it out and simply utilised the information from behind the scenes, which you'd have been perfectly within your rights to do, according to the contract stipulations.

 

[Whois-Search]

Lee I actually greatly appreciate your help and support on this to try and get deleting.co.uk back up (as I do everyone elses thank you).

I am also trying to find out who made the decision to shut me down.

The undertaking I have is signed by Nick Wenban-Smith who has been there "3 weeks" and replaced Edward Phillips.

So who told him to send it? I believe the non-executives never even knew about it.

The letter also says they have had it checked by their external law firm who say they can see no way anyone can run such a service under the current DAC contract.

Also I would like to add I wasn't intentionally breaking Nominet's T&Cs.
I thought I was only providing a "insubstantial" part of the database as you say.
Also it was a FREE service and I wasn't making money out of it.

I was just pointing out what is likely to happen if you did do the opposite.

I am now being offered literally money by some high profile domainers to pay for this to be checked out and I haven't signed anything yet. I have just agreed to close the site down and confirmed my DAC has been cancelled.

 

[retired_member6]

Lee I actually greatly appreciate your help on this to try and get deleting.co.uk back up.

I am also trying to find out who made the decision to shut me down.

The undertaking I have is signed by Nick Wenban-Smith who has been there "3 weeks" and replaced Edward Phillips.

So who told him to send it? I believe the non-executives never even knew about it.

Nominet have also had it checked by their external law firm who say they can see no way anyone can run such a service under the current DAC contract.

Also I would like to add I wasn't intentionally breaking Nominet's T&Cs.
I thought I was only providing a "insubstantial" part of the database as you say.
Also it was a FREE service and I wasn't making money out of it.

I was just pointing out what is likely to happen if you did do the opposite.

I am now being offered literally money by some high profile domainers to pay for this to be checked out.

It costs nothing to spend a little free time, of which I have too much - well even more now although saying that I might have to actually work harder in the affiliate market - it also costs nothing to write letters and get the word out, which is working a little bit, it would be nice to see some news stories in domainer favour - unlikely but you never know, Nominet did just shut down a service industry in part - A GOVERNMENT APPOINTED BODY JUST SHUT DOWN A SERVICE INDUSTRY AND IT WASN'T MAGGIE THATCHER, but I won't repeat their faults in the decision, but not enough was taken into consideration as would normally be in law.

As far as I see it, 5.3 in relation to 5.2 and in that order, you're full entitled to list domains and manipulate whois data internally to present an end product just not include data to be specific. They even speak of lists as long as you don't break rules in 5.3 and even then date countdown is questionable, all I saw wrong was showing tag names, did I miss something? the decision stinks, it's wrong, whoever made the decision should be sacked. Will they stand up and be counted as they watch the uk domain market's growth slow down, see a whole service industry suffer and people and businesses lose money and themselves lose money.

The law firm, I'd have to see their reasoning as to why they can see there's no way when the contract expressley permits it, which law firm? I hear there's a bunch in the amazon that swing amongst trees, did they use that lot? It's an unbelievable decision and one you should really have shared with us all before signing anything. Bullying tactics that didn't warrant a response as far as I'm concerned but that's easy for me to say.

 

[sneezycheese]

Exceptions

Nominet regularly use the excuse about something that forms part of thier T&C's saying that's the rules and we're bound by them. As proven many times before this is not always the case and Nominet have made "Exceptions" to the rule when it either suited them or when pushed (e.g. verbatim .co .uk)!

So my question is: Why did Nominet not choose to make an exception in this case, as they no doubt have the power to do?

I'm guessing it's because it niether 'suited' and they were not 'pushed' - maybe (I hope) this will change one way or another in Andrews favour!

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[retired_member6]

Oh and you could try the freedom of information act to find out who the complainant was, not sure it would work but it is directly related to you because without the complaint, you wouldn't be in this situation. But others on here know better than me, I'd try it on anyway, but if the complainant had any sense they'd have used another name anyway.

 

[Whois-Search]

As far as I see it, 5.3 in relation to 5.2 and in that order, you're full entitled to list domains and manipulate whois data internally to present an end product just not include data to be specific. They even speak of lists as long as you don't break rules in 5.3 and even then date countdown is questionable, all I saw wrong was showing tag names, did I miss something?

I agree the DAC current contract contradicts itself and needs looking at.

Also just to confuse things even more I got my DAC in September 2005 and only agreed to the beta contract:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050717...lityCheckerdac/DacBetaTestTermsAndConditions/

 

[retired_member6]

I agree the DAC current contract contradicts itself and needs looking at.

Also just to confuse things even more I got my DAC in September 2005 and only agreed to the beta contract:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050717...lityCheckerdac/DacBetaTestTermsAndConditions/

Contracts supersede each other though, unless you walk away it's taken as given that you're signed to the new one and have accepted it.

 

[sneezycheese]

Useful Press Contacts

Here are some useful press contacts for anyone who's interested:

Chris Williams (The Register): http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2007/04/27/nominet_elections_2007/

DN Journal: [email protected]

The best of the rest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediaress_releases/Logbook/February_25,_2004#UK_websites

Regards (and good luck everyone),

Sneezy.

 

[seanc]

andrew, just add a donate button if you need more funds

 

[stender]

If Andrew was only breaching one or two of the rules shouldn't nominet have just said can you take them off your site? i.e. who got what.

Surely not tell him to shut the whole site down?

smells to me!

 

[bb99]

If Andrew was only breaching one or two of the rules shouldn't nominet have just said can you take them off your site? i.e. who got what.

By the look of it, it's all down to how you interpret the T&Cs. Andrew said:

The letter also says they have had it checked by their external law firm who say they can see no way anyone can run such a service under the current DAC contract.

But if you take that literally, maybe it is possible to run *a* service - just not the exact one that Andrew was running (so maybe without dates/who got what etc... but maybe not).

smells to me!

It certainly does - and a very nasty smell at that.

 

[dhscott]

An irony with being sent donations for a site which offers a free service is that you make more money when the site is down than when it is up and running... :???:

Just an observation

 

[Whois-Search]

An irony with being sent donations for a site which offers a free service is that you make more money when the site is down than when it is up and running... :???:

Just an observation

Never thought about it like that lol

 

[retired_member11]

Lee I actually greatly appreciate your help and support on this to try and get deleting.co.uk back up (as I do everyone elses thank you).

I am also trying to find out who made the decision to shut me down.

The undertaking I have is signed by Nick Wenban-Smith who has been there "3 weeks" and replaced Edward Phillips.

So who told him to send it? I believe the non-executives never even knew about it.

The letter also says they have had it checked by their external law firm who say they can see no way anyone can run such a service under the current DAC contract.

Also I would like to add I wasn't intentionally breaking Nominet's T&Cs.
I thought I was only providing a "insubstantial" part of the database as you say.
Also it was a FREE service and I wasn't making money out of it.

I was just pointing out what is likely to happen if you did do the opposite.

I am now being offered literally money by some high profile domainers to pay for this to be checked out and I haven't signed anything yet. I have just agreed to close the site down and confirmed my DAC has been cancelled.

Request full disclosure from Nom.

 

[mattonline]

From what i've been reading deleting.co.uk broke the rules and should be punished (not harshly, the way they did) maybe just the warning like many people have said, but they still did break the rules, you just have to work around them.

i feel gutted, i was going to start using a service to drop catch domains and now where am i going to go to look for them, i hope you can get this back up even if its not as good as the original.

 

[daveg72]

Email sent to [email protected] what a bunch of c**ts.

Deleting, Thanks for the great service you have provided me over that last 13 months and if it is any consolation, i would have paid a subscription for it.

Very disappointed and disgusted to see the service gone. I hate this country, its shit.

 

[Whois-Search]

From what i've been reading deleting.co.uk broke the rules and should be punished (not harshly, the way they did) maybe just the warning like many people have said, but they still did break the rules, you just have to work around them.

The DAC contract it self actually says what to do:
See 8. Suspension, Termination and Revision
http://www.nic.uk/other/dac/contract/

Can you see where it says Nominet will terminate your DAC immediately and without notice to fix it?

Or is it 6.2.2 from 8.4:

6.2.2. (for abuse) immediately suspend this contract until such time as we are reasonably satisfied that the abuse will not reoccur; and/or

 

[mattonline]

aw rite, those rules are a bit harsh, how do you get your DAC back? do you have to fill in forms etc

 

[yesterday]

If there were two or more registries running services for the UK, then people would have a choice as to where they would register names and which service they would use.

We don't.

Nominet's monopoly means we are stuck with them, and their off-the-wall, spur of the moment decisions.

Newbie internal lawyer calls outside lawyer for advice on interpreting Nominet's own Terms and Conditions, on the back of a single complaint, then makes drastic overly-draconian judgement and decision apparently on his own.

Haven't seen management stand by him, no response from him or anyone else in Nominet. He should leave and his decisions should go with him. Management should be challenged to explain why they are still management.

Competing registries should be set up for .uk and other cctlds.

1000's of registrants should be compensated for loss of business.

yesterday