Question for Nominet

[Jac]

Yes I would like that issue addressed please and thank you.

I'm sure that you are with me on this issue anyhow to protect any domains you may hold.

If we are still talking about the domain transfers issue, it has already been addressed.

I wish your dog luck

-aqls-

Feel free to come around... he'd love to have you for dinner.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[sneezycheese]

Sorry Jac...

If you can point me to a case where Nominet sent out transfer forms to another address other than the one of record, I will personally go to Nominet and insist the person who did it is sacked.

...So it seems as some evidence has been put forward which collaborates the information given regarding the above. What I don't get is even if the forms get sent to the wrong person, how the hell does that person get passed the next bit:

From Nominuts Website... "If either the Transferor or Transferee is an individual, they must write their confirmatory letter on plain paper and include their home address and the address they provided at the time of registration. They must also provide us with a copy of photographic ID (passport, driving licence) or utility bill addressed to them at their home address."

...So is this also being neglected at Nominuts???

If we are still talking about the domain transfers issue, it has already been addressed.

...Please tell us how Nominuts has addressed this.

RE: Nominuts

"They are not supposed to do it, I have been assured they don't,"

"If I ask a question and I am told they are doing something by the book, I have to believe them."

...Don't believe everything your told by Nominuts, because just maybe your not actually being told the truth. You've said it yourself...

It always a good idea to trust no-one you haven't got in yours sights; and even then, with caution.

Incidentally, if you are going to make these sweeping statements, please point me to where I used domain owner’s names on this forum where they hadn't already identified themselves?

...An example: http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/nominet-general-information/5893-good-idea-nominet-7.html?highlight=simon#post26998

PS: nominuts.co.uk/com & nomynuts.co.uk/com are all available if anyone is interested. :mrgreen:

 

[olebean]

Sneezy

You made a poor olebean smile :-D


OB

 

[A-Wing]

I have had transfer docs sent to the guy receiving the names instead of me before, even though I clearly said in my emails which address was which. Pain in the arse but I'm not too bothered as I trust the guy the domains went to.

 

[retired_member16]

James - email nominet and ask for transfer forms for firestars.co.uk

Then stop spouting when the transfer forms land on your doormat.

 

[gordon]

If you can point me to a case where Nominet sent out transfer forms to another address other than the one of record, I will personally go to Nominet and insist the person who did it is sacked.

They are not supposed to do it, I have been assured they don't, so give me proof of "bollocks" and I'll make damned sure it doesn't happen again. But if you have no proof, show some integrity and stop making unsubstantiated comments.

It seems everybody and his dog thinks they have a right, but some of you don't even show a responsibility to your own registrations. You want the right to say bollocks? Earn it! It comes with a responsibility price tag!

James,
I note that Jay answered this on Acorn Domains before in a different way from yourself.

Perhaps statements on operational procedures should be left to Nominet staff to ensure the answer is correct and up to date?

Gordon

 

[Beasty]

I'm not sure I see what the problem is with having forms sent to a different address. After all, there may well be a perfectly legitmate reason why the transferor is not at his registered address at the time he wants the transfer done - so wants it sent to a different location. It would frankly be annoying if that could not be done.

What I find more curious - quaint even - is the use of paper forms by Nominet given that it is the .uk domain registry. One would have thought a secure online system could have been set up by now that at the very least matched the level of security in the paper based physical signature system that costs so much to run. Perhaps a bit of healthy competition would spark them along a bit!

 

[Whois-Search]

Because it's England and old lady's still like to have their "book stamped" in the bank rather than use online banking!

 

[rob]

Pint, kebab and a barney on Acorn! Fantastic Friday night stuff

WHEEEYYYY etc.

*nicks a traffic cone*

ps. one thing to note is if a domain is shown to be nicked Nominet will reverse a transfer, something that other registrys do not do. A tad bolting horse / locking the gate etc but there is that additional safeguard.

 

[Jac]

Sorry Jac...

Accepted.

...So it seems as some evidence has been put forward which collaborates the information given regarding the above. What I don't get is even if the forms get sent to the wrong person, how the hell does that person get passed the next bit:


...So is this also being neglected at Nominuts???


...Please tell us how Nominuts has addressed this.

I would love to tell you how Nominuts has addressed this sneezy (if indeed they need to) but as I said in another post, it is doubtful they can begin investigating until Monday. I am all for openness and transparency and if there is something wrong here, I'll be the first to object to dah management.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

James - email nominet and ask for transfer forms for firestars.co.uk

Then stop spouting when the transfer forms land on your doormat.

Oy vey! I'm a trusting kind of guy until people show me otherwise; never said I was perfect but I'd like the .uk registry to be! So, I have sent on the details grantw kindly posted here but (as I said) it will probably be Monday before they can give me an answer. I accept there seem to be an awful lot of people saying the same thing but like Beasty just suggested, "I'm not sure I see what the problem is with having forms sent to a different address." (See his post at 12:29AM).

However, I was told one thing and you guys are all telling me another. So I'd like to check how things are supposed to be done and how they are actually done before committing myself to further comments.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

James,
I note that Jay answered this on Acorn Domains before in a different way from yourself.

Perhaps statements on operational procedures should be left to Nominet staff to ensure the answer is correct and up to date?

Gordon

Dearie me... maybe I'm just too old-fashioned for this kind of corporate rationale, but (frankly Gordon) the suggestion that "statements on operational procedures should be left to Nominet staff to ensure the answer is correct and up to date" sucks.

This kind of parochial and entrenched thinking is exactly the reason why I now feel more empathic towards Beasty's viewpoint here that Nominet needs to be "owned by the nation". If Nominet cannot or will not be accountable to the nation it serves, then I will not be associated with corporate shennanigans and closing of ranks that ostensibly forbids ordinary stakeholders (i.e. registrants) from challenging and questioning the modus operandi of their .uk registry... and lest we forget, it is indeed theirs!

Heck, I'll even thank texidriver for reminding me of a phrase I used recently: by way of corroboration for my viewpoint ... and here's some evidence to support my contention that the PAB and the stakeholders on this forum have a right to question operational procedures in their .uk registry!

At the PAB meeting on the 5th June 2002 the following people (among others) were in attendance. Gordon Dick (then an elected PAB member), Alex Bligh (Appointed Member from the board), Willie Black (then Chairman of Nominet) and Emily Taylor (then Company Solicitor now Director of Legal and Policy).

Here is an extract from the report of that meeting (quoted verbatim):

It was agreed that the PAB is a method of communication and consultation between Nominet and its stakeholders. The CoM should consult on policy issues with the PAB and in some cases it would be more appropriate to consult with the wider membership.

Gordon Dick offered to draft a mission statement for the PAB based on this discussion, which the Executive would then use to draft a "PAB charter".

The definition of policy was discussed. The PAB agreed that the proposed definition of "everything that is not operations" is inappropriate and that policy includes: Rules, Pricing, Changes of governance, Interaction with stakeholder groups and other issues that the CoM refers to the PAB.

Now pardon me all over the place but when something is put down in black and white and promised to the community, I take great exception to the inference that I (or the community) should keep their noses out of operational procedures which are possibly not being adhered to as per written policy. Nota bene: I say possibly, because I do not yet know the facts from the other side.

That said, you so incensed me with your self-righteousness a few days ago (your disagreement that Nominet is a natural monopoly) that I have spoken to my PAB colleague at the DTI and he is getting back to me on the question of whether the DTI still regards Nominet as a natural monopoly as it did in 1999.

The stark irony here is, that if you are indeed Gordon Dick, you already know how I react to suggestions that the PAB or the members and stakeholders do not have a right to question operational procedures, yet you challenge me on a public forum when my sensibility will not, and never has, tolerated this kind of censorship or silencing of legitimate views.

Regards
James Conaghan
PAB Member representing Members and Stakeholders!

 

[Jac]

Names already in the public domain

...An example: http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/nominet-general-information/5893-good-idea-nominet-7.html?highlight=simon#post26998

PS: nominuts.co.uk/com & nomynuts.co.uk/com are all available if anyone is interested. :mrgreen:

sneezy...

with the greatest of respect, your name was already in the public domain when I used it (and anyway, I only used the christian name). The point is, anybody looking here can see it... and given that you spent a considerable amount of time discussing your DRS case on this forum, I'd say it was no secret. Pick the fights that count; this isn't one of them.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Pint, kebab and a barney on Acorn! Fantastic Friday night stuff

WHEEEYYYY etc.

*nicks a traffic cone*

ps. one thing to note is if a domain is shown to be nicked Nominet will reverse a transfer, something that other registrys do not do. A tad bolting horse / locking the gate etc but there is that additional safeguard.

Posted at 2:01AM ...

Don't any of you guys ever sleep?

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[retired_member27]

Jac, do you actually have a life or even a job other than this forum because you seem to spend so much time here writing reams of stuff. Life's to short to be sitting in front of the computer all day, go out, get some fresh air and enjoy yourself.

 

[Jac]

Jac, do you actually have a life or even a job other than this forum because you seem to spend so much time here writing reams of stuff. Life's to short to be sitting in front of the computer all day, go out, get some fresh air and enjoy yourself.

You're right! But if all was right at the ranch, I wouldn't feel compelled to get involved. I'm a get involved kinda guy... probably to my detriment... but it's a legacy from all the injustice I've seen in my life... and I keep saying it... someone somewhere has to take responsibility for something.

PS: I'm actually at the office today and tomorrow too working on the day job!

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[sneezycheese]

sneezy...

with the greatest of respect, your name was already in the public domain when I used it (and anyway, I only used the christian name). The point is, anybody looking here: http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/4860_sundeckvip3.pdf here can see it... and given that you spent a considerable amount of time discussing your DRS case on this forum, I'd say it was no secret. Pick the fights that count; this isn't one of them.

...Duly noted Jac and thanks for reminding me of the fights that need fighting.

People of this forum, please note that this DRS document is at version 3!!! :twisted:

The original decision is here: http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/4769_sundeckvip.pdf

Version 2 is here: http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/4856_sundeckvip2.pdf

...This is what happens when you follow the Nominet Formal Complaints Procedure - A Cover Up Operation! - And so very 'slick' at it they are too - They've done it before maybe?


Some interesting Info. (if anyone's interested ):

Complaints Success Rate Sample (%):

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/5331_DRS060419compl_success_rate.GIF

DRS Mediation Settlement Sample (%):

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/5327_DRS060419mediate_settles_pie.GIF

Trading Standards letter to Nominet:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/5718_Trading_Standards_Institute.pdf

…Note: a possible ‘useful’ contact within Trading Standards – Mr Richard Webb (Lead Officer on E-Commerce issues – Email: [email protected]


An ‘interesting’ response to Nominet from the Internet Watch Foundation (page 2 re:whois data):

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/5717_Internet_Watch_Foundation.pdf


Schlund + Partner AG consultation response (PAB idea looks interesting):

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7015_Schlund.pdf

Number of .uk Registrations Sample:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7159_Registrations_per_Month.gif


I'm now off to enjoy the afternoon Sun.

Cheers all,

Sneezycheese.

 

[netserve]

So... let me get this clear... are you saying that if a domain name points at a website offering items for sale and the registrant is opted out, that the registrant should not be opted back in again?

If it's clear cut fine, opt them in but give them say 5 days warning first so that they can ensure the contact details point to a 'safe' address.

By the by, accusing Nominet of taking a cavalier broad brush to all opt out/opt in complaints, is akin to saying everybody on this forum sticks to the rules; they are both preposterous suggestions... and the irony is, you've got domainers complaining about domainers... which is why I suggested to firestars he keeps schtum about bogus registrant names.

I'd be amazed if anyone on the forum sticks to the rules because most of the time the rules are not know about, not clear, open to interpretation or not policed consistently

I don't much care for catchers complaining about other catchers, that's just competition, jealousy and in some cases yes it's justified for fairly obvious abuse.

What I do care about is that we manage about 10,000 .uk domains for our customers so knowing that the rules work, are sensible, well considered and applied with thought is more important than anything. There is nothing more frustrating that to see our business relationships put under pressure because of bad decisions or mistakes at Nominet. To be fair to Nominet they don't happen often but when the do I think we're justified having a moan.

 

[Jac]

If it's clear cut fine, opt them in but give them say 5 days warning first so that they can ensure the contact details point to a 'safe' address.

For the record, I have already agreed that I personally think this is a reasonable point.

However (and this is not meant to deflect from your point) please note that one of the PDFs pointed to by sneezycheese is from the IWF (and I quote): "From a practical perspective it should be impossible for a domain name holder to be untraceable". Whilst I don't necessarily like the constitution of the IWF, I agree with this particular viewpoint (as a matter of accountability).

I always thought the Terms and Conditions made it reasonably clear that correct information was required otherwise it could invalidate the registration; but it seems things are not as clear as I thought? If I remember correctly, one of the reasons for the expanded whois was a legal one (for business and/or trading registrations anyway). IE: an address for service was required on the whois.

I'd be amazed if anyone on the forum sticks to the rules because most of the time the rules are not know about, not clear, open to interpretation or not policed consistently

So, does that mean the requirement to give a correct registrant name and contact address is not clear enough on Nominet's website or tag holders' websites? Please note; I am not trying to trip you or anybody else up, just asking why you seem to be blaming the rules for not being clear enough, instead of the people who register their details incorrectly in the first place? It seems (some) people do this intentionally; which is actually counterproductive when you consider the problems they are creating for themselves down the line (but they do it anyway).

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[gordon]

Dearie me... maybe I'm just too old-fashioned for this kind of corporate rationale, but (frankly Gordon) the suggestion that "statements on operational procedures should be left to Nominet staff to ensure the answer is correct and up to date" sucks.

James,
I don't follow you. Are you saying it is better to have lots of people supply their opinion on the facts from Nominets side and not the actual facts?

Heck, I'll even thank texidriver for reminding me of a phrase I used recently: by way of corroboration for my viewpoint ... and here's some evidence to support my contention that the PAB and the stakeholders on this forum have a right to question operational procedures in their .uk registry!

I think I must not have been clear. Where did I say they didn't have a right to question?

Now pardon me all over the place but when something is put down in black and white and promised to the community, I take great exception to the inference that I (or the community) should keep their noses out of operational procedures which are possibly not being adhered to as per written policy.

James, that is neither what I said nor meant. Please read what I say not what you think I say.

Gordon