Suspended before renewal catch wanted (decent reward offered)

[wb]

Sean, are you saying that even if the correct process is followed by the person or people who are legally permitted to reinstate a company (i.e. to take it out of "dissolved" status so that it is entitled to trade again) any domain names associated with that company should still be taken off them, even though under the law that company - the same company, not a different one of the same name - is accepted to "exist" from that point forward?

Domains are not considered to be an asset, and the Nominet Terms & Conditions show that being restored makes no difference to the contract being terminated:

19 If you are not an individual, this contract will end if you complete a liquidation or disbandment process or otherwise no longer exist, even if (where possible) you are later restored by an official or court order or decision.

 

[anthony]

Sean, are you saying that even if the correct process is followed by the person or people who are legally permitted to reinstate a company (i.e. to take it out of "dissolved" status so that it is entitled to trade again) any domain names associated with that company should still be taken off them, even though under the law that company - the same company, not a different one of the same name - is accepted to "exist" from that point forward?

Edwin, you are dismissing Nominet's stance on this issue from 2004. They made it crystal clear that upon dissolution of a company, the domain contract ceases to exist, there is no legal entity to have a contract with, that can't be anything other than black & white. Restoring a company should have no bearing on this. The 'grace period' you refer to is a Nominet anomaly which in terms of these domains is open to possible exploitation by former directors of former companies. Besides which, the Treasury Solicitor should not be issuing a waiver letter simply to restore a company to access a domain name, it has acknowledged on it's own web site that it no longer deals in domain names as assets, ever since Nominet altered the T&Cs in 2004. If I ever suspected that a company was being restored simply for this purpose, I'd complain myself regarding the basis for issuing the waiver letter. A Director has ample time to address these issues with the administrator etc prior to dissolution, whilst the contract with Nominet is still valid, simple as.

Sean, I've asked before for a list of any domains which people are aware of being passed to directors, please feel free to PM me any more you know of, that would be appreciated, cheers.

 

[olebean]

Domains are not considered to be an asset, and the Nominet Terms & Conditions show that being restored makes no difference to the contract being terminated:

Who doesn't consider them a asset..

 

[wb]

Who doesn't consider them a asset..

Nominet, as seen in the T&C proposals from back in 2004.

Nominet has always maintained that a domain name registration is not an asset, but a right under a contract.

 

[Edwin]

The following information seems relevant to the discussion of dissolved companies...
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/3239_Dissolved_registrants.pdf
http://www.nominet.org.uk/registrants/maintain/transfer/dissolved/

So the circumstances are extremely limited, but there evidently COULD be cases where the domain name can still be "rescued" post-dissolution if enough hurdles are cleared.

 

[olebean]

Nominet, as seen in the T&C proposals from back in 2004.

I've read it before, nominet, ICANN etc have tough jobs. I can understand their argument, there are other arguments and legislation that companies have to abide by IFR, IPS, ISO who suggest otherwise...

One of the problems with DNs is it's like having a slave with two masters, one is a neo-capitalist and the other an ethical-capitalist. the ethical-capitalist relies on the neo-capitalist to function the economic network.. For the ethical-capitalist it appears there is no world beyond vituality, in comparing worlds its dangerous to their existance... While comparision between worlds is foregone, the neo-capitalist appears to be engaged in a competitive struggle, capturing rent by altering the enviroment.. In altering the environment, the neo-capitalist is shifting equilibiurm, bring closer equilibrium of worlds... while they focus on lowering the firtility of virtual land, at the same time altering the environment and spraying virtual firtiliser, a game exists.... All the time quietly, the virtual land becomes more important... shame really, by which time most neo-capitalist may well have wrecked the new world.... just my thoughts.... added in some of mr www. et al..

 

[Bailey]

The registrant correction process is the one by which my domains were returned. you don't have to jump all the hurdles - Invoice payment direct from my account was sufficient.

I wonder just how many individuals have created companies as their intended means of trading in domains alone or an online presence only never to complete their own business wish. I seem to remember in the early days of domaining advice being given to create a holding Company for one or all domains as protection against disputes or challenges. More so when the Internet was seen as some sort of wild west frontier