Local council loses domain name

[Jac]

Yes the registrar is a reseller but the contract isn't wholly with Nominet as it's the reseller's job to keep the domain in place and well maintained. So someone could argue the above unless if the council's domain fell into Nominet's rule you're willing to leave yourself open to a lawsuit? :mrgreen:

Sorry Lee, you have to make the distinction between the different contracts here. The contract of registration is with Nominet and the Registrant. What the reseller, tag holder (call 'em what you want and no 4 letter words please) contracts to do with the registrant or customer is a separate contract. Nominet's own Ts&Cs make that crystal clear. See here. (Read the first paragraph in bold type.)

The irony here is that the council would probably not have lost this domain under the Nominet system where a domain is suspended a number of weeks before it is deleted and where Nominet send out a written warning of pending deletion to the contact address on file. The Nominet system is safer than the .COM system in a number of ways. It certainly seeks to protect the registrant more.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jac]

As for the domain in question, there really isn't enough information in the article to truly form a knowledgeable opinion. One presumes the three months passed so there is negligence on the customer's part even though the party felt they'd paid to secure the rental for the next two years by sending a cheque.

Something should have been done in those three months to force the registrar to get the domain back at normal cost and the ensuing fine from Nominet should see it didn't happen again.

Are we arguing at cross purposes here? Wasn't the domain name in question a .ORG (under the auspices of ICANN)? So why are you referring to Nominet fining people?

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jac]

Since this is a relevant time , I would point out that Eurid the .eu registry has, in my opinion sensibly for once, decided that domains will automatically be renewed unless advised to the contrary. I wonder why Nominet dont take up that as well and then it will save a lot of heart ache for people who accidentally lose their names etc ??. Nominet could automaticallly renew, charge the Nominet registrar who put the domain name through and then put the onus on the Registrar to collect the money OR apply for a refund and have the name deleted (making sure at same time perhaps that we do not invite kiting as happens with .com) . Why not ?

DG

Nominet used to automatically renew domain names. It was just over a couple of years ago that the positive renewal system came into being. However, there were reasons why the automatic renewal thing became a nightmare for tag holders especially. Tag Holders got charged automatically whether they ever got their own fees from the registrant or not. Sure, they could DETAGG domains before renewal but I wonder how many automated registrars in particular lost out big time on this kind of to-ing and fro-ing and cross referencing. There was a review of the positive renewal process in June 2004. For me, personally, positive renewals meant I didn't have to worry about domains slipping through with A N Other Registrant never paying me; and just to be clear on that; just as there are cowboy tag holders there are cowboy registrants too.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[retired_member6]

Sorry Lee, you have to make the distinction between the different contracts here. The contract of registration is with Nominet and the Registrant. What the reseller, tag holder (call 'em what you want and no 4 letter words please) contracts to do with the registrant or customer is a separate contract. Nominet's own Ts&Cs make that crystal clear. See here. (Read the first paragraph in bold type.)

The irony here is that the council would probably not have lost this domain under the Nominet system where a domain is suspended a number of weeks before it is deleted and where Nominet send out a written warning of pending deletion to the contact address on file. The Nominet system is safer than the .COM system in a number of ways. It certainly seeks to protect the registrant more.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

Yes I find the fact a registrar can delete domains the way they do with .com very unnerving anda bleeding cheek. For instance, that's the only option with DD24. It's safe to say I don't do any more business with them.

 

[retired_member6]

Are we arguing at cross purposes here? Wasn't the domain name in question a .ORG (under the auspices of ICANN)? So why are you referring to Nominet fining people?

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

No, I know it's nothing to do with Nominet, just pointing out that whether you wish to call registrars resellers or businesses offering services on Nominet's behalf, they both can be regulated within good practice guidelines, if they fail to deliver the service that Nominet is allowing them to provide then they should be pulled up on it. That's all.

Because in the end it reflects on Nominet.

 

[Whois-Search]

I see they just registered cromertown.org.uk which they should have used in the first place

 

[texidriver]

In a world where Noddy and Big Ears are playing in the garden and the flowers are flowering and God's in his heaven and all's right with the world, nobody would ever make a mistake, but we do, because we're Human. But now we're into the realms of philosophy and how a thing should be and isn't, and why everyone expects everything for next to nothing but doesn't accept any responsibility, obligation, or duty, in anything much at all. It's kinda like 'the world owes me' territory and if I'm ranting it's only because sometimes a sudden thought strikes me... like... wouldn't it be nice if just once, people stopped constantly saying it's someone else's responsibility and took some of their own. But there you go, that's obviously just Jac being unreasonable again.

The secret of being a bore is to tell everything.

Voltaire

 

[grandin]

Professional Negligence

Whilst Terms and Conditions can protect the company to some degree, its all about being fair. For example lets say a company sends regular emails as a reminder to renew a domain name and over several years it becomes normal practice for all registrants to rely on that service. If that service then breaksdown to the detriment of one person then it could be deemed professional negligence. My domain names are with easyspace and not had a problem in 7 years....touch wood

Lee

 

[Jac]

[

The secret of being a bore is to tell everything.

Voltaire

Please send me your name and address; I'll come visit and we can discuss your psychosis. Or don't you have the bottle?

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Whilst Terms and Conditions can protect the company to some degree, its all about being fair. For example lets say a company sends regular emails as a reminder to renew a domain name and over several years it becomes normal practice for all registrants to rely on that service. If that service then breaksdown to the detriment of one person then it could be deemed professional negligence. My domain names are with easyspace and not had a problem in 7 years....touch wood

Lee

Lee

I totally agree, it is about being fair; but I am continually reminded by colleagues (and adversaries) that being fair is highly subjective. Even so, I agree we should never stop trying to be 'fair to all'... even those we'd rather smack in the gob.

That said, I believe it would add more constructively to the debates about Nominet if some of the more enthusiastic critics on AD acknowledged that being fair to all isn't an easy task.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

No, I know it's nothing to do with Nominet, just pointing out that whether you wish to call registrars resellers or businesses offering services on Nominet's behalf, they both can be regulated within good practice guidelines, if they fail to deliver the service that Nominet is allowing them to provide then they should be pulled up on it. That's all.

Because in the end it reflects on Nominet.

Hold on to your hat, but I agree, and IMHO, so does Nominet. Every now and then they have to suspend a tag for non-compliance with the Tag Holder Agreement and they do investigate every complaint received against a tag holder. The Raising Industry Standards consultation was about just that; raising industry standards. Quite a few Nominet Members will tell you, I am Nominet's biggest critic at times, but it seems fair to me, that if we are big enough to criticise, we should also be big enough to give credit where it's due, and Nominet simply is not the big bad monster some of the critics on AD suggest. The fact is, Nominet UK is supposed to respond to the needs of all stakeholders, not just one or other of them. If we all want what's fair, then we have to reciprocate. That's just mutual consideration in an oftimes inconsiderate world and Nominet UK is streets ahead in the consideration stakes when you consider the problems with top level registrars in the .com field.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

Support Nominet

In reply to James,

I must add I have all the admiration for Nominet and the DRS....for what is good and much is good.

The value of settling out of court through diplomatic resolution is the right answer BUT as Nominet and James well know I have many concerns......the structure of Nominet needs to be changed but I don't see this happening without a struggle....therefore who has the power....Trading Standards I suppose....is this why I am directed to contact them by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Lee

 

[Jac]

In reply to James,

I must add I have all the admiration for Nominet and the DRS....for what is good and much is good.

The value of settling out of court through diplomatic resolution is the right answer BUT as Nominet and James well know I have many concerns......the structure of Nominet needs to be changed but I don't see this happening without a struggle....therefore who has the power....Trading Standards I suppose....is this why I am directed to contact them by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Lee

Lee

As you know from our previous email exchanges, I can only speak for myself, but I would be happy to offer my opinions (answers) on why you feel the structure of Nominet needs to be changed. Would you (for instance) also suggest the structures of other not for profit registries throughout the world need to be changed too? And if not, why do you feel Nominet is a special case?

As an aside, I am not sure what Trading Standards has to do with changing the structure of a registered company limited by guarantee or why you felt the need to contact the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Is it the DRS you are seeking to change or the structure of Nominet?

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[grandin]

Registrars

James, I personally believe the web is too fast moving for any organisation.....as you know you continue to chase it....this will never change...it will always move faster than Nominet HOWEVER you can keep close behind by not having to gain votes to change things.....Nominet need to bring in dynamic Directors...pay them well and empower them to make changes without the need to pass it by members. The recent vote against the board clearly highlights this issue.....it will back fire on members so let the board get on with what they need to do.

I do not truely understand but I am sure if Trading Standards found a fundamental flaw with Nominet they could apply to the courts for things to be changed....maybe wishful thinking

I have my views but do not see a need to make them public but all who need to know are aware of my views.

Whole of the World issue....yes, because Registrars are setting DRS based on rules that have not been proven in a court of law. The pattern that is emerging is this:-

By trying to protect Trade Mark holders you are starting to infringe on basic human rights which WILL back fire at some point. Prime example is the .eu...... it was decided that a level of rights should be introduced with Trade Mark holders at the top of the tree......non trading rights was never part of this process....many sites exist on a not for profit basis but they were not given equal rights to apply.

Common Sense solution:-

Equal rights to apply
Quick and easy process to deal with infringements

Lee