Deleting.co.uk RIP

[fred]

If there were two or more registrars 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 registrar(s) should be set up for .uk and other cctlds.

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

yesterday

There is already more than one registrar for .uk, there is, however, only 1 registrY.

 

[retired_member6]

I just received this in response to my email sent a few days ago.

The one thing I don't get, is they believe "However when we looked at deleting.co.uk it was clear that several tens of thousands of entries from our register of .uk domain names had been copied onto the site in breach of the Standard Terms and Conditions for use of the DAC service."

How can that be so? Tag holder and dates were only used, wasn't the whois details a direct link to the DAC look up? Where are these tens of thousand of entries? what words with .co.uk on the end? Fair enough if all the whois data was scrapped, I thought it was direct lookup when hitting whois which is why it timed out after too many searches to see if taken already.

And further still, what about suspension versus termination and working with deleting which provides a service worthy of Nominet in-house, why not work to keep it up and within the rules?

Cheers
Lee

Hi Lee,

Thank you for your email.

Whilst we do not comment on the specifics of individual cases, you will
see from the statement made by Andrew Bennett that we received a complaint about the deleting.co.uk website.

Nominet takes complaints made about abuse of the database of .uk domains
very seriously, and we have widespread industry support for our approach
to protecting our intellectual property. We have to investigate alleged
abuse of our data.

The purpose of our DAC service is to allow higher volumes of domain
availability data to be provided to subscribers to this service. However
when we looked at deleting.co.uk it was clear that several tens of
thousands of entries from our register of .uk domain names had been copied
onto the site in breach of the Standard Terms and Conditions for use of
the DAC service.

We cannot give you legal advice, but we do suggest you have a careful look
at the Standard Terms and Conditions (
http://www.nominet.org.uk/other/dac/contract/) and section 5 in
particular.

With reference to your question "please could you tell me if I will be breaking the rules if I become a member and do exactly the same as deleting only without showing who caught what and showing tag holder name and showing domains dropping on the day without showing a countdown or specific date information",the terms and conditions are specifically written to prevent the storage of parts of the register it is therefore unlikely that a similar service could comply with the terms and conditions. If you are in any doubt then you should obtain some independent legal advice.

If you have any questions please do contact me.

Regards,
Adam Henderson
Registrant Advisor
Registrant Services

Dear Sir / Madam,

Last night I discovered you have pulled the plug on deleting.co.uk. The result of this will be vast, domain name registrations will drop meaning less revenue for Nominet, less income via transfer of domains, less income for registrars and yes you're putting out the entire domainer industry overnight, I believe you've over reacted in this instance and would ask you to rethink.

I've read the contract and your legal team have been ill advised to request that a tag holder delete their lists, the clauses that appear to have been broken were 5.3 which is illegally capturing whois information and reshowing to the public, in this instance all you had to do was ask for the information to be removed so the service could continue.

I am now willing, as are a few others to set up a new deleting service as obviously we cannot do without this website, you have literally killed one half of my business operations overnight and I will suffer severly, so in common with clause 5.2 and as your legal team have researched this matter in its entirety already please could you tell me if I will be breaking the rules if I become a member and do exactly the same as deleting only without showing who caught what and showing tag holder name and showing domains dropping on the day without showing a countdown or specific date information.

Would that be acceptable? i.e. not showing any whois information at all and not regurgitated to the public at large. As you've researched this in full already this should be an easy answer. Furthermore I wish to complain about how poorly you have treated a member, you fired no warning shot, you sent no initial email, you went straight in for the kill which makes many of us believe you don't value the domainer community, nor accept it. Fair enough, react to a complaint but how you have do so has been wrong.

You and I both know which rules were broken, deleting is an acceptable service bar the showing of whois information which with a little foresight shouldn't have been used in that manner but it did take a complaint for you to do anything about a service that you've long known about so even in that respect your reaction has been quite over the top.

You should be careful in future, you just told a tag holder to delete all information pertaining to the whois database when you had no right to do so under the contract, it was a suspension, not a termination. His company really should now sue you for loss of earnings.

I look forward to hearing from you on the above matters, I realise you can't discuss individual cases but as I will be setting up deleting two and others deleting three, four and five, we would appreciate knowing what exactly was wrong with the deleting service over and above the showing of dates and tag holder name. essentially whois info being redistributed. As according to the contract with Nominet, holding lists and making available to the end user is perfectly within rights.

I would also urge you, before Nominet loses any more income due to this decision, to reinstate the tag holder and dac access with immediate effect as they have complied with you wishes - rather foolishly I might add though that comment is more aimed at your legal team - and also write to the tag holder stating that the deleting service is fine if they simply do not show the 92 or 99 countdown and the tag holder that catches domains.

I trust you will do this with immediate effect as there are no reasons why you cannot, and in doing so your income and the interest in your company can begin to rise again and as a community we can put this all behind us and learn from this episode, failure to do so will create an awkward atmosphere and be bad for both our business interests.

Please reply at your earliest convenience.

Yous Sincerely
Lee Owen

 

[Whois-Search]

However when we looked at deleting.co.uk it was clear that several tens of
thousands of entries from our register of .uk domain names had been copied
onto the site in breach of the Standard Terms and Conditions for use of
the DAC service.

I'm not very happy at all about that comment.

There were 40,000 names on the site out of a database of 5.8 million. The names themselves were NOT derived from their data. How can you get a list of names from the DAC? The status was not shown or published on the website.

I did not store the renewal date either it came back live then I stored the number of days from that date. Even if this was still derived from their data.

The TAGs on the "who got what" page may have been in breach of the contract however surely that column could have been deleted or even shown live (not stored)?

 

[retired_member6]

I'm not very happy at all about that comment.

There were 40,000 names on the site out of a database of 5.8 million. The names themselves were NOT derived from their data. How can you get a list of names from the DAC? The status was not shown or published on the website.

I did not store the renewal date either it came back live then I stored the number of days from that date. Even if this was still derived from their data.

The TAGs on the "who got what" page may have been in breach of the contract however surely that column could have been deleted or even shown live (not stored)?

It doesn't matter where the domain names come from, they're words from a dictonary compiled from centuries of the English language merged with a .co.uk at the end. Are Nominet claming rights to that now? The English language?

As you've stated and as we've known, the only data you were possibly holding was tagholder, as that didn't look like direct read outs from whois and would eventually have timed out I'm sure and dates, well I'm not sure, only you and several technicals will know how you did it but your explanation sounds plausable.

I'm concerned how they just appear to be making presumptions about the data you were holding, "it was clear" not all that clear from where I am. It still doesn't make sense. What next pro domainer's doors knocked down at five in the morning, you're not telling me they don't have whois data on their pcs. I know I do. Mostly me own though from PRSS.

So when they called you in to say you were being suspended and went against their own terms and told you to delete questionable material, did they actually bring in the technical director, Jay Daley, sit you down and ask you how the processes went together and the technical director agreed what you were doing was storing all this data? or are you saying one lone solicitor called you in and claimed to be the fountain of all knowledge?

What exactly did you store and was it only tag holder names next to domains in the database? If that's your only crime then the punishment hardly fits. You did Nominet a service and they have failed to understand the spirit of the internet in which it has grown to become. A vast API and info sharing which enables end user products to be developed and released and utilised over and above what any sole company and entity can possibly acheive on their jack jones.

Cheers
Lee

 

[stevebrowne]

I love it when not-for-profit (are they?) quasi-government agencies come out with: "our intellectual property".

Now agreed, they are reponsible for looking after the data and ensuring that it is not abused, but at the root of it all, it's not their intellectual property. If Nominet get replaced with someone else, the data goes with it.

 

[Whois-Search]

So when they called you in to say you were being suspended and went against their own terms and told you to delete questionable material, did they actually bring in the technical director, Jay Daley, sit you down and ask you how the processes went together and the technical director agreed what you were doing was storing all this data? or are you saying one lone solicitor called you in and claimed to be the fountain of all knowledge?

No. It is was Lesley Cowley on her own 1:1 as requested and she gave me a letter signed by Nick Wenban-Smith. I don't know who advised Nick to write the letter. For all I know Jay Daley never even knew about it I suspect it was the legal team dealing with a complaint.

What exactly did you store and was it only tag holder names next to domains in the database?

You can store anything you like for personal use. This is about republishing that data. I only republished the stored TAG yes. However because the domain name and the number of days were checked/derived from their DAC there is also a question about that data.

 

[tifosi]

Under DAC terms 5.1

5.1. The data returned from a DAC query is sourced from the register in which we have the intellectual property rights.

So they are right in quoting this.

However:

8.4. (Without altering clause 6.2), either party may terminate or suspend this contract by notifying the other if the other:
8.4.1. commits a material breach of any term of the contract and (in the case of a breach which is capable of remedy) fails within 14 days after the other notifies them to remedy the breach and explain in writing the steps taken to remedy of the breach; or

What concerns me most is that they have applied 8.4 via 8.4.1 without implementing 6.2.1 and 6.2.2

6.2. You must comply with this contract and the policy. If you do not we may:
6.2.1. terminate this contract under clause 8.4.1;
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

There seems no attempt to find any common ground or way forward. Surely this was 'capable of remedy'? All seems very political.

S

 

[retired_member6]

No. It is was Lesley Cowley on her own 1:1 as requested and she gave me a letter signed by Nick Wenban-Smith. I don't know who advised Nick to write the letter. For all I know Jay Daley never even knew about it I suspect it was the legal team dealing with a complaint..

I'd have requested the presence of Jay Daley and a full top to bottom understanding of the processes, after signing an NDA, and if any rules broken pleaded for leniancy, come on, it was only tag holder being shown and I suspect that's who you upset, the cunning funt. It's easy for me to say but I think you've been dealt the wrong hand.

You can store anything you like for personal use. This is about republishing that data. I only republished the stored TAG yes. However they are saying the domain name and the number of days are also their ip.

The domain name and the dates are not their property, everyone knows that you can take a proportion of an idea or information and change it and make it new, even Nominet must know that. You need a solicitor, if you need money I'll start trying to sell my domains wholesale but I got rent to pay at end of the month as well, I can't say I'll raise what's needed though, I know I can't but I'll try to get a little donation together.

The whole thing stinks of a decision being made by clueless inept people with ulterior motives and not acting in the best interest of the company, the community or the membership. No name calling, that's just how I feel and what I believe.

It's wrong, even more so hearing Nominet's response. You should also try and get that contract / declaration you signed ripped up and claim misinformation and undue pressures making you believe you had to sign something when you shouldn't have. Then once that's done, sit down with them again and invite Jay Daley for competence.

 

[retired_member6]

Under DAC terms 5.1



So they are right in quoting this.

However...

But deleting wasn't showing the direct data that was pulled but a transformation, look at me, me teaching nominet about IP rights. It's the world turned upside down.

 

[yesterday]

what happened to the 14 days and the opportunity to remedy the breach?

8.4. (Without altering clause 6.2), either party may terminate or suspend this contract by notifying the other if the other:
8.4.1. commits a material breach of any term of the contract and (in the case of a breach which is capable of remedy) fails within 14 days after the other notifies them to remedy the breach and explain in writing the steps taken to remedy of the breach; or

yesterday

 

[Whois-Search]

First of all I have NOT signed anything yet. I have spoken to Nick today and he says I have compiled so far by taking my site down and since they have cancelled my DAC then there is not much they can do about it anyway.

I agree the DAC contract is confusing and they seem to have jumped to 5.3.6 and 6.2.2.

If you think that contradicts itself ...... then read 2.9 Media Attention on the PAB code of conduct:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/16862_code_of_conduct.pdf

I just had Chris Williams contact me from "theregister" and I had to refer him to the PAB chair and the Director of communications because I wasn't sure about that clause in relation to deleting.co.uk. Even though the DAC contract I had was as a individual Nominet member.

 

[rob]

There seems no attempt to find any common ground or way forward. Surely this was 'capable of remedy'? All seems very political.

Sadly I agree with this

 

[retired_member6]

First of all I have NOT signed anything yet. I have spoken to Nick today and he says I have compiled so far by taking my site down and since they have cancelled my DAC then there is not much they can do about it anyway.

I agree the DAC contract is confusing and they seem to have jumped to 5.3.6 and 6.2.2.

If you think that contradicts itself ...... then read 2.9 Media Attention on the PAB code of conduct:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/16862_code_of_conduct.pdf

I just had Chris Williams contact me from "theregister" and I had to refer him to the PAB chair and the Director of communications because I wasn't sure about that clause in relation to deleting.co.uk.

They cancelled your DAC, I thought it was a suspension? When exactly did it become a termination? when they realised they shouldn't have told you to delete under a suspension? What's going on? Well don't sign anything, write them a letter stating the contract parts that they've broken and get things back on track. It's up to you what you do, but someone aint playing fair.

There's not much they can do, they can reinstate your dac, simple. They have control over everything, they can do everything as they run the show.

 

[Whois-Search]

They cancelled your DAC, I thought it was a suspension? When exactly did it become a termination? when they realised they shouldn't have told you to delete under a suspension? What's going on? Well don't sign anything, write them a letter stating the contract parts that they've broken and get things back on track. It's up to you what you do, but someone aint playing fair.

There's not much they can do, they can reinstate your dac, simple. They have control over everything, they can do everything as they run the show.

The letter I received on Monday said they had told Member and Registrar Services to terminate it and if I tried to use it again I would be done for "hacking".

I confirmed with Member and Registrar Services on the 23rd May 2007 that my DAC has been indeed cancelled via email.

 

[rob]

... and if I tried to use it again I would be done for "hacking".

I hope they dont take my several cock ups of the BULK command earlier as attempted denial of service and try and 'do' me under the computer misuse act.

'Hacking' is quite a strong term.

 

[Whois-Search]

'Hacking' is quite a strong term.

It says: "You should be aware that, in the UK, this is a criminal offence".

 

[retired_member6]

The letter I received on Monday said they had told Member and Registrar Services to terminate it and if I tried to use it again I would be done for "hacking".

I confirmed with Member and Registrar Services on the 23rd May 2007 that my DAC has been indeed cancelled via email.

So they terminated, not suspended. Fair enough, do the 14 days etc still stand under a termination and 'working things out'?

They just don't want deleting existing, they seem to have a vested interest in seeing your service die and even their company doesn't know if another similar service can be run legally in any way shape or form as they told me to get my own legal advice, they're clueless, how can they not know what can and can't be run under their own terms and conditions yet judge on it at the same time.

If they've broken terms and conditions, you need to tell them and get that rectified and then start bringing in key witnesses and even their very own tech bod, but again, it's all up to you it costs nothing to write a letter and get them to stick to the contract and you said yourself you have until end of June. Get writing if you feel like it, arrange meetings, get back in the door. There's loads on here that will try to help you.

We all have a vested interest in seeing deleting return but we unfortunately can't do anything about it, only you can. We can all see that Nominet believe you were doing more than you were, but they're breaking their own terms and conditions and doing their best to get rid fast.

There is an obvious way deleting can return, just use another tag but we'd need to find out and get independent legal advice to see if the service can be run legally after dropping the tag holder name, then surely it can continue? Perhaps Nominet would like to go halves on the fee to find out, so that they know as a company as well? Stupid aint it.

I can't say anymore (but probably will), it's all up to you now, I'd still try and get a meeting with Jay Daley and get all this stuff that Nominet feel is 'clear to see' and get all that cleared up. 'Thousands of entries from the database', what a load of cobblers. Tag holder names whilst that may have been the one bit illegally done, it was certainly no reason not to enable compliance within a certain time scale as deemed by the contract and then sitting down and finding a way forward but Nominet didn't even try that.

Christ help us all, the double barrelled man has only been in a job three weeks, imagine what damage he can do in three months, it's not even worth thinking about.

Cheers
Lee

 

[yesterday]

Quote:
8.4. (Without altering clause 6.2), either party may terminate or suspend this contract by notifying the other if the other:
8.4.1. commits a material breach of any term of the contract and (in the case of a breach which is capable of remedy) fails within 14 days after the other notifies them to remedy the breach and explain in writing the steps taken to remedy of the breach; or


Quote:
6.2. You must comply with this contract and the policy. If you do not we may:
6.2.1. terminate this contract under clause 8.4.1;
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

=====

So what's the difference between "material breach of contract" as stated in paras 8.*

and "abuse" as stated in para 6.2.2

I imagine it means that "abuse" is "material breach" a) after the 14 day warning or b) that the breach is not capable of remedy.

Given that this case is clearly capable of remedy, then are they not, in according to these paras, in breach of contract for not giving 14 days notice?

Also, Given that they should be "reasonably satisfied" that the abuse will not reoccur, seeing as you are a responsible elected PAB member and have complied completely with all unreasonable requests. They should reenable your own DAC access without delay, for your personal use.

Any delay on their part is also surely a breach of trust on their part?

What remedies would we have if they are seen to be in breach of their terms? anyone?

yesterday

 

[retired_member6]

It says: "You should be aware that, in the UK, this is a criminal offence".

It's typical legal bull, anything over the top you should write back and get stated on record that you disagree with terms used. The one DRS I have had to date, I wrote straight away to tell the solicitor, who was also the complainant that his wording was very unfair, derogoratory and a defamation on my character and that he should withdraw comments attaining to myself laid out in the drs with immediate effect.

He did and apologised, and I ended up with a nice negotiation. Never let a solicitor get away with saying something more harsh than is deserved, it's called 'objection m'lord', even in written form.

Does anyone think I'm enough of an a******* to take up law? I'm only 29, there's still time for a career change.

 

[Whois-Search]

What remedies would we have if they are seen to be in breach of their terms? anyone?

The best I could hope for would be an apology like on Michael Toth's bounce.co.uk appeal:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/10081_bounce_appeal.pdf

However to prove it (without Nominet accepting the formal complaints) I would need to take it to court if not the law society?

That is something I really don't want to get involved with however this is starting to turn into the rights of every member and not just about myself.

Andrew