legal status of UK domains

[sneezycheese]

Well that must be a conspiracy then. Best call Scotland Yard.

Well you probably won't get one from Michael Penman because the penchant to be destructive as opposed to constructive has put him in an impossible position and Elvis has left the building.

I am compelled to say this; because this continued no-brainer conspiracy theory leaves me despairing of the human race; it may seem clever to always suspect the worst of those who provide your services but all it does is highlight who is reasonable and who is not and I will personally be contacting the DTI to give them my opinion on the reasonableness of what I regard as a witch hunt. You have a right to do the same from your own standpoint.

...as the saying goes - 'Whatever'.

But here's a thought. If one or one hundred people (or even 1,000) think it is unfair, does that mean that the other 5 million are naive or just stupid, or do they simply accept that for every service you wish to partake of in life there is a service level agreement or contract.

...I would say that the majority of the other 5 million don't even know who Nominet are, let alone the Nominet contract and even less the Nominet DRS.

I would also say that on the whole people only have a problem when things go wrong - some companies deal with it in a customer focused and fair way - some don't. ...and as you keep pointing out that the numbers are small, so why is Nominet so reluctant to actually deal with the problems properly?

I really don't like all this 'tapping ourselves on the back' lark, pointing out all the bits that are good, that's really not the way to move forward and improve things. In my experience good businesses proactively look for any problems in their product and to fix those errors/faults/problems that are found quickly, because it's going to affect their reputations and proffit margins, but I guess while Nominet has a captive audience, isn't regulated, isn't accountable to its custmers, is going to get the ump when some of their customers aren't happy and has the PAB for the reasons you've stated to me - then what's the insentive?

I applaud you coming on this forum Jac and I thank you for organising the meeting, but I do ask myself why Nominet isn’t actually doing this themselves and in an ‘official capacity’? ...or are you now their official spokesman/Marketing Manager etc.?

 

[Jac]

If I had known one year ago what I know now then things for me would have been very different. IF Nominet had created a forum and marketed that forum to ALL registrants over the last seven years then all 5 million registrants would have had an equal opportunity to understand rights relating to a domain name.

But all 5 million registrants do have an equal opportunity to understand their rights, it's just that most of them never need to refer to the Terms and Conditions, Specific Rules of Registration, or DRS Policy during the lifetime of their domains. DRS disputes account for a very small percentage of all domain name registrations but spookily enough, domainers and dropcatchers are more likely to be caught up in a dispute (because of the nature of their multiple registrations) than a registrant who owes one or a dozen domains for their own personal and business purposes. That's the law of averages at work... but back to your point... the reason I can say each registrant has an equal opportunity to understand their rights is that the Terms and Conditions tell them what Nominet will do and what Nominet expects them to do. Your interpretation of Nominet's Ts&Cs is unique (for want of better expression).

When a company decides to offer advice it must be fair to all those who would benefit from that advice.

Acorn members had and have an unfair advantage over the other 5 million registrants.

That is the law of becoming unequal through your own endeavours. I would have thought an entrepreneur like yourself would understand this. Everybody has the equal opportunity to become unequal. Such is the competitive nature of life and even Acorn Domains. Acorn Domains was set up by one or more enterprising individuals as an additional service to the dropcatcher and domainer communities. There are other forums where ordinary stakeholders chat amongst themselves too.

Jac's argument does not wash with me. IF there was no possibility of litigation and that all registrants were legally represented at the point of sale then I would agree.

This is completely unrealistic for all the reasons I have mentioned in the same thread you refer to below.

Note: Even today an acorn member has gained concern that domain names he holds (ie. domain names represented as peoples whole names) could constitute an infringement. Thanks to Acorn NOT Nominet he now knows more.

That's why Acorn exists, so that people can come here and learn more; and kudos to the people who created it. IMO community is what the internet is about, and Acorn Domains is a community of a subset of stakeholders. It is an equal chance to become unequal, but only if you find it.

Rights relating to domain names has become very topical and unfortunately very costly if a wrong decision is made on behalf of a registrant.

Unfortunately, anyone who loses a DRS or UDRP or ADR will always think a wrong decision has been made. It is the law of human nature.

To provide information in an unfair manner (to a select number) and/or offer advice via a DRS that conflicts with advice given therein needs to be investigated.

This is totally misrepentative of what actually happens when a registrant or stakeholder contacts Nominet.

I have not forced Michael to leave any forum, if he does then maybe he has concern over his actions...I don't know...ask him.

Or maybe he's just pissed off with being maligned and misrepresented, but like you say, we don't know.... but either way, Acorn Domains has now lost a source of knowledge that I think was much more productive than not having it will be counterproductive.

Lets not forget words like bounce have been lost to trade mark holders when it is unclear whether the registrant knew any better, and the name is much more than that relating to the complainant.

It was lost in the first instance because the respondent did not put in a response. It was lost in the second because of (if I remember correctly) problems with wrong addresses and emails bouncing. It may not be lost yet because neither the respondent or his legal representative have indicated if they intend to go to court on the issue... so we'll have to wait see. But to suggest it was lost because it is unclear whether the registrant knew any better is a back-handed insult to a rather wily registrant who, as far as I know, is a knowledgable and experienced businessman.

I would also like to see disclosure of the experts. Whilst I respect there is no conflict of interest I am unsure to what % they are funded by Trade Mark holders. ie. How much of their business is derived from companies that have Trade Marks? Disclosure in this manner would not be detrimental to them but would clearly show transparency.

I am all for transparency but there is already disclosure by the experts when they are asked to disclose any reason that they know of why they should not act in a particular DRS. Nominet can decline to use them if there is an apparent conflict of interests and the case is then offered to the next available expert (by rotation). However, I think you mean public disclosure, which I would have thought you got from the preamble of the DRS decisions where the expert declares he was asked and said there was no reason why he could not decide that particular case.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Hi Jac, why would you contact the DTI to give you side, what side do they have at the moment?...are they aware of whats being written here?....whats the relevance?...do you know something I don't ie. that ole and/or sneezy have contacted the DTI?

Lee

Erm... Lee...

you said you had already contacted them. It doesn't matter what side they have or haven't been given, I'm giving my own.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

...as the saying goes - 'Whatever'.

LOL sneezy! You're the whatever expert!

...I would say that the majority of the other 5 million don't even know who Nominet are, let alone the Nominet contract and even less the Nominet DRS.

This is being addressed (an ongoing communications campaign) and I would say a lot more know today than did a few years ago or even 12 months ago. By way of comparison, a lot of stakeholders don't even know who their tag holder is!

I would also say that on the whole people only have a problem when things go wrong - some companies deal with it in a customer focused and fair way - some don't. ...and as you keep pointing out that the numbers are small, so why is Nominet so reluctant to actually deal with the problems properly?

Why are you so reluctant to accept they may already do so? To every rule there will always be an exception and exceptions are always harder to resolve.

I really don't like all this 'tapping ourselves on the back' lark, pointing out all the bits that are good, that's really not the way to move forward and improve things. In my experience good businesses proactively look for any problems in their product and to fix those errors/faults/problems that are found quickly, because it's going to affect their reputations and proffit margins, but I guess while Nominet has a captive audience, isn't regulated, isn't accountable to its custmers, is going to get the ump when some of their customers aren't happy and has the PAB for the reasons you've stated to me - then what's the insentive?

Sneezy, you already know how hard the various factions are working to change things but to say Nominet is not accountable lacks substance. Nominet is constantly in discussions with DTI, OFT, Home Office, ICO, CBI and loads of other consumer and business organisations. The incentive is what it says on the tin. To respond to the needs of their customers and stakeholders. It would be folly for the UK Registry not to show accountability and responsibility to the Internet Community in a fast shrinking worldwide arena. Government agencies most definitely keep a watchful eye on things, so I would suggest that Nominet has to be seen to be acting in the interests of the UK.

I applaud you coming on this forum Jac and I thank you for organising the meeting, but I do ask myself why Nominet isn’t actually doing this themselves and in an ‘official capacity’?

Well, I'll hazard some guesses. First of all there are 5.1 million registrations and millions more stakeholders (because a stakeholder is not just a registrant, he/she could be an internet user); there are constant meetings with DTI, OFT, Home Office, ICO, CBI, ISPA, Linx; there are other consumer and business organisations and Nominet events including lunches, evening events, Parliamentary events; then there are all sorts of other stakeholder individuals and bodies who all have to be slotted in somewhere. Not wishing to decry the importance of Acorn Domains, but there are currently 1,791 members out of a worldwide community of millions of stakeholders. I think it is also fair to say that Acorn Domains makes up a particular subset of stakeholders with its own agenda. IE: they do not necessarily register domain names for their own usage but for PPC and resale purposes and people on Acorn Domains have referred to themselves as "Professional" Registrants. Hence, their vision of what the domain name service is about may well conflict with the millions (well, okay thousands) of user registrants who continually contact Nominet to complain about domaining (sorry, but that's a fact). Oh, and add to that all the overseas meetings with CENTRE, ICANN, IGF, other global internet bodies, and other Registries.

So, Nominet's management and Executive is kept pretty busy servicing the whole internet community and I think it is reasonable to suggest that in any business arena one must apportion one's time to the interests of the majority. Which is why I keep saying, the majority contact Nominet by more traditional methods like telephone, email, letter or personal visit. There is no requirement on any company to delegate personnel to what is ostensibly a private forum.

Acorn Domains had individuals from Nominet contributing to the threads, but some of you frustrated them into leaving... and I can't say I blame them for going. I'm still here because I want to see if any one of you has the good grace to actually step back and see how counterproductive this incessant witch hunt has been.... forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

But that's only me hazarding some guesses.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[sneezycheese]

It seems as though it's not just the 'experts' who like play both sides of the net, but PAB members too. :shock: ...

An extract from the Namedropper website:

"Hands-on experience in Domain Name Disputes
Domain Name Disputes are complex and stressful. We recently undertook a dispute on behalf of a client and eventually won back two domain names for them, but it was a long, tedious process."

...Anyone care to explain?

 

[Jac]

It seems as though it's not just the 'experts' who like play both sides of the net, but PAB members too. :shock: ...

An extract from the Namedropper website:

"Hands-on experience in Domain Name Disputes
Domain Name Disputes are complex and stressful. We recently undertook a dispute on behalf of a client and eventually won back two domain names for them, but it was a long, tedious process."

...Anyone care to explain?

So, not content with attacking Michael Penman, you have now decided to attack me?

Which bit of the plain English in the sentences you have quoted don't you understand? It is written in plain English. However, for those who are not of sufficent intellect the first sentence says what it means and means what it says; disputes are complex and stressful. No surprise there then. The second sentence is true although it was actually written 3 years ago; I undertook this dispute because a certain individual was being arrogant and self-righteous about said domain names and I wanted to prove a point. I think I did. The last bit about being long and tedious is also true.

So what explanation do you seek? Or are you only asking because you are simply determined to vindictively go to any lengths to try to sully everyone else's name and integrity? The kind of inferences you keep making about anyone who doesn't agree with your highly subjective viewpoint lack character and personal integrity and I find it distasteful and disappointing (though sadly, not surprising).

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

hold on

Hold on Jac, I am a witness to compensation being talked about re Sneezy's DRS case....You backed him and now you are not??

Lee

 

[Jac]

Hold on Jac, I am a witness to compensation being talked about re Sneezy's DRS case....You backed him and now you are not??

Lee

One issue has sod all to do with the other so please do not convolute issues!

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

lets start that issue then

Ok lets talk about the meeting. I recall you backing Sneezy for a compensation claim. Therefore do you back him or Nominet?

I personally back Sneezy but yep I am biased towards those who have lost money under the contract

Lee

 

[Jac]

Ok lets talk about the meeting.

The current argument has nothing to do with the meeting.

I recall you backing Sneezy for a compensation claim. Therefore do you back him or Nominet?

I personally back Sneezy but yep I am biased towards those who have lost money under the contract

Lee

You are mixing up two completely separate issues. One is sneezy's DRS and the other is the calling into question of my integrity by sneezy. They are not inter-related so please do not use one to talk about the other.

I am still pissed off that sneezy would even suggest I act or would act in an inappropriate way, especially when the DRS he referred to was 3 years ago and that I would "play both sides of the net" especially when I was not actually a PAB member when I acted for a client in that particular DRS. Facts do not cease to exist because you and anyone else chooses to ignore them.

I await sneezy's response.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

jac

Look jac don't take sneezy's comment to heart...

Sneezy is doing his best to assert his views regarding the drs, I am also doing the same. Jac if your are defending Nominet against our assertions then we have a conflict but at the end of the day Trading Standards will have to decide whats proper or not. They will have to decide things like:-

Is it proper for Nominet to allow experts to change the verdict script

Is it proper for Nominet to recommend to goto an internet chat room called acorndomains.co.uk

Is the contract fair

etc..etc.....
Lee

 

[Jac]

Look jac don't take sneezy's comment to heart...

When everybody and everything else and its dog have walked out, your personal integrity is what remains. I do indeed take these inferences to heart even if they are made in a jocular or naive manner.

Sneezy is doing his best to assert his views regarding the drs, I am also doing the same.

Consideration is a two-way street. If you wish to enjoy it for yourself you have to be prepared to extend it to everyone else whatever their race, colour, creed, or persuasion, and whether you disagree with them or not. I see precious little mutual consideration in some of the allegations that fly around this board.

Jac if your are defending Nominet against our assertions then we have a conflict

I have not deviated from the opinion I offered at the meeting on the 22nd June.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[texidriver]

This message is hidden because Jac is on your ignore list.

I really works!

 

[Jac]

This message is hidden because Jac is on your ignore list.

I really works!

I'm busy now. Can I ignore you some other time?

 

[sneezycheese]

So, not content with attacking Michael Penman, you have now decided to attack me?

...No attacking, just stating facts and asking questions.

Which bit of the plain English in the sentences you have quoted don't you understand? It is written in plain English. However, for those who are not of sufficent intellect... So what explanation do you seek? Or are you only asking because you are simply determined to vindictively go to any lengths to try to sully everyone else's name and integrity?

...Calm down Jac, you'll do yourself a mischief.

I understood what was said all too well (and in plain English :mrgreen: too - a bonus), so I can't see how I can be sullying your name by reciting words from your website, but hey, it's obviously something that's touched a core.

I am still pissed off that sneezy would even suggest I act or would act in an inappropriate way, especially when the DRS he referred to was 3 years ago and that I would "play both sides of the net" especially when I was not actually a PAB member when I acted for a client in that particular DRS. Facts do not cease to exist because you and anyone else chooses to ignore them.

I await sneezy's response.

...Many thanks for the clarification - Glad to see it wad before your PAB days.

 

[Jac]

...No attacking, just stating facts and asking questions.

You stated an opinion based on your own supposition old pal. You even had the chutzpah to convolute it with an 'eyes wide' smiley. If you want to state facts state facts; there was nothing but supposition in your first statement.

...Calm down Jac, you'll do yourself a mischief.

I'll do you a bloody mischief in a minute! :twisted:

I understood what was said all too well (and in plain English :mrgreen: too - a bonus), so I can't see how I can be sullying your name by reciting words from your website, but hey, it's obviously something that's touched a core.

Stop being a neanderthal... you know what you did. You used the words completely out of context and anyway, why would it have mattered if I was still representing clients in the DRS? How does that differ from a lawyer who is arguing for a plaintiff one week and the defendant the next?

...Many thanks for the clarification - Glad to see it wad before your PAB days.

What business would it have been of yours what I do in a professional capacity? If you design a website for a client who is in the same business as me, and I then ask you to design a website for me, would your previous client have a right to scream "conflict of interests"? Or do these small proprieties only apply to other people and not yourself?

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[aqls]

If you design a website for a client who is in the same business as me, and I then ask you to design a website for me, would your previous client have a right to scream "conflict of interests"?

Well that situation is often one of the points covered in a properly designed web design contract.

Best practice is usually to be upfront about any possible conflict of interest.

-aqls-

 

[Jac]

Best practice is usually to be upfront about any possible conflict of interest.

-aqls-

Fair point again.

My point is I don't have any; conflict of interest that is. Sneezy's implication was that I did.

Regards
James Conaghan