WHOIS details

[Jac]

Interesting argument, I would suggest that you go look at many "software" developers anual accounts, there you will see intangible assets...An intangible does have asset, whether that is good will, TM, Copyright etc etc each can be sold as "assets" as a single entity.

Are you resident in the UK? I only ask because I cannot change the Law of the Land or how the Courts in England have thus far viewed domain names. Interestingly enough, the Official Receiver (in England) does not view a domain name as an asset when a Limited Company goes bust (bankrupt).

Equally it is interesting that you suggest English does not recognise them as property, that is only a matter of time, it would be far more prudent for nominet to recognise this as inevitable and make approriate steps towards this rather than being reactionist

Nominet is bound by Company Law and it is obliged to work within the boundaries set by English Law. Here's an interesting point for your consideration. If domain names were indeed regarded as property, each and every argument would probably end up in the Courts which would cost thousands and probably tens of thousands. Court cases are notoriously expensive. The One in a Million judgement which set much of the precedent on domain names in English Law, cost the loser a lot of money. The Defendants were ordered to pay the Plaintiff its costs of £10,000 and that was over and above their own costs. That was in 1997. I would suspect the costs could easily be doubled in today's world.

All in all, you guys talk opinion (and you have every right to) but when I am trying to give you the facts and look for solutions based on those facts, it feels like you all want to shoot the messenger!

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jac]

Domains are an asset and increasingly so. Whether they're due any more respect within English law is another thing but an asset they most certainly are,

I'd say something is only an asset if it has value to someone else (i.e. a buyer). In general, people are more web savvy than they used to be. A domain name could be areallyawfulnametohave.com but if you put enough web marketing into it, it may well fly; just as pigs may fly with enough thrust!

if they weren't then you wouldn't have the government keeping hold of domains when a company goes bust. Double standards as usual?

Er... they don't, at least not anymore. They used to in the past but times (and legal definitions) change.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[retired_member6]

Well there's a site that still sells them on today. It's out there somewhere, someone may have the URL.

 

[olebean]

Jac

I find you fairly amusing..

Where on earth did i ask you to change law? Perhaps if you had been involved a tad longer you would know there is a gentlemans "agreement" between the inland revenue and nominet that allows nominet to retain title to domains when a company goes into receivership, reason quoted too much hassle (inland revenue being sued)...... dont worry Jac I am only quoting facts as mentioned by a nominet member of staff...

If you know receivers / bailiffs, you will also know they tend to prefer tangible items or items they are used to and can easily value and dispose of.

As for the court issues, I welcome courts dealing with all issues relating to domains regardless of cost...

With all respect Jac, if your representing views that are forward thinking I am affraid you appear as archaic and as a nominet "brown nose"

 

[sneezycheese]

As for the court issues, I welcome courts dealing with all issues relating to domains regardless of cost...

I second that sentiment! Courts are better placed and less 'subjective'!

 

[Hazel Pegg]

As for the court issues, I welcome courts dealing with all issues relating to domains regardless of cost...

I hope that you will be responding to the upcoming Nominet DRS Consultation? A Draft Paper is available at http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/5525_PAB_Paper_-_DRS_Update_May_2006.pdf

Hazel

 

[retired_member16]

Please define "millions of domains" and in which extensions. And what exactly do you mean by "sales of .uks"?

Ok, I'll bite.

.com domains are sold the world over in huge quantities on a daily basis. This process is free. Why is Nominet chargin £30+ for something that the rest of the world can do for free?

Most "user registrants" don't have the same criteria as dropcatchers or domainers when registering domain names. Should the PAB and Nominet ignore their concerns and wishes? If you think they should; why?

And its not these registrants that complain about the cost, so why mention them?

 

[Hazel Pegg]

.com domains are sold the world over in huge quantities on a daily basis. This process is free. Why is Nominet chargin £30+ for something that the rest of the world can do for free?

Because Nominet ensures that the registrant really does want to sell the domain? I/my company own a few .uk domains that we really do care about and wouldn't want to be transferred by accident. So on that level I'm happy that Nominet has a procedure in place that checks transfer requests. In our early days we stupidly/ignorantly registered a few domains in our company name and not in the names of the clients. We have now transferred all those domains to the correct registrants and paid to do so. No problem.

It seems to me that the Nominet system only causes problems for those who wish to sell/transfer domains in large quantities - at which point the £30 per name becomes a significant factor. So factor it into your business model or don't deal in .uks.

Others will continue to regard .uk as a safer, more stable model than .com simply because it is so difficult to transfer ownership.

Hazel

 

[retired_member6]

It seems to me that the Nominet system only causes problems for those who wish to sell/transfer domains in large quantities - at which point the £30 per name becomes a significant factor. So factor it into your business model or don't deal in .uks.

Hazel

Nominet could also be denying their product to a wider audience, in some cases that might also be good but in others... as I understand it there's a kind of MLM with .coms that will simply never be possible with a .co.uk but perhaps that's good also...

 

[bb99]

It seems to me that the Nominet system only causes problems for those who wish to sell/transfer domains in large quantities - at which point the £30 per name becomes a significant factor. So factor it into your business model or don't deal in .uks.

I disagree - many of my clients are "user registrants" and the subject of .uk domain transfers often come up. I can't recall a customer that wasn't taken aback by the fee/s involved.

Personally I think that the procedures that Nominet goes through when transferring domains is great as it is... but I think that transfers should be free as this is an integral part of the activities of a domain registry. I fully accept that Nominet incur costs in transferring domains from A to B but in my view these should be absorbed into the massive pot of bunce that all the £5 registration fees go into*.

The charging of fees for transfers is bad because:

- It encourages improper transfers of domains (ie "I'll push to your account" without an actual legal transfer happening).

- It discourages accurate and up to date WHOIS data which in turn will lead to problems in year/s to come.

- It stifles the resale market for low value domains (ie if you sell a domain for £10 on eBay the price is actually considerably more if you effect the transfer properly).

- It pisses off and confuses registrants.


Finally, one thing to add to the debate in this thread: As PAB members it is your responsibility to see the wider picture and to take into account the views of all the stakeholders etc and I'm glad that you appear to be doing so. However it is not the responsibility of others to do the same, so in my view it's perhaps better to just take on board the views expressed in this thread (along with others) rather than arguing about minutiae, which is what tends to happen on Nom-Steer!



* I also think that the same should apply to the DAC and PRSS but that's another story.

 

[olebean]

I am certainly not against transfer fees or keeping tighter control over the mechanisms that drive transfers including pushes.

To me these issues ralate to percieved value, low value low cost or the throw away domain trade.... Higher domain charges, higher control higher end value.....

Personnally I want higher end value....

 

[Jac]

Jac

I find you fairly amusing..

Where on earth did i ask you to change law?

I'm glad I brighten your day, but I did not say you had asked me to change the law, I simply said I can't. English lessons are here.

Perhaps if you had been involved a tad longer

I have been involved since 1997. How much longer would you have liked me to be involved?

you would know there is a gentlemans "agreement" between the inland revenue and nominet that allows nominet to retain title to domains when a company goes into receivership, reason quoted too much hassle (inland revenue being sued)...... dont worry Jac I am only quoting facts as mentioned by a nominet member of staff...

I have no problem with facts or anyone pointing out that I am wrong; if they allow me the same consideration. Having been part of the Nominet discussions on the revised Limited Company rules I can tell you that Nominet does not have a gentleman's (or even lady's) agreement with the Inland Revenue, nor does it currently hold title to, or stockpile domain names that have been cancelled. I don't know where you get your information from but it is wrong and that's a fact.

With all respect Jac, if your representing views that are forward thinking I am affraid you appear as archaic and as a nominet "brown nose"

I only represent my own opinion, though in general, it is reasonably well informed because I listen to other people and their viewpoints. I don't always agree with them but I listen anyway. I am sure AcornDomainers like Whois-Search will vouch for my impartiality even when I dislike a particular viewpoint. Further to that, I do not work for Nominet, nor am I paid by them, my allegiance is to the internet community. I do what I do for one simple reason; someone's got to; otherwise the misinformation that creates the ill-feeling on fora like this continues without much redress.

Any reasonable person would want to know as much as possible about the systems that affect their lives and businesses; any reasonable person would understand you have to know the systems to decide what you are actually criticising or misunderstanding; any reasonable person would not be so childish in his assumptions; just not you it seems.

So, for all those reasonable people on this forum, I am happy to answer your questions about Nominet and its systems, and I'm happy to work with all stakeholder groups to find compromises and better solutions; but all reasonable people will understand that consensus is a majority issue and the internet community is more than just you, me, and his pompous self olebean.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jac]

And its not these registrants that complain about the cost, so why mention them?

Because they have as much right as the people complaining. I'm sure you are not advocating that the domain name system belongs to only you or one stakeholder group? At least, I hope you aren't.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jac]

I second that sentiment! Courts are better placed and less 'subjective'!

I'd just remind you that "olebean" said "regardless of cost". Are you really saying you are prepared to pay (probably) tens of thousands in court, on each and every domain name dispute?

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jac]

I disagree - many of my clients are "user registrants" and the subject of .uk domain transfers often come up. I can't recall a customer that wasn't taken aback by the fee/s involved.

Personally I think that the procedures that Nominet goes through when transferring domains is great as it is... but I think that transfers should be free as this is an integral part of the activities of a domain registry. I fully accept that Nominet incur costs in transferring domains from A to B but in my view these should be absorbed into the massive pot of bunce that all the £5 registration fees go into*.

All reasonable points and (shock horror) I'm inclined to agree. In an ideal world tag transfers and registrant transfers would indeed be free.

The charging of fees for transfers is bad because:

- It encourages improper transfers of domains (ie "I'll push to your account" without an actual legal transfer happening).

- It discourages accurate and up to date WHOIS data which in turn will lead to problems in year/s to come.

- It stifles the resale market for low value domains (ie if you sell a domain for £10 on eBay the price is actually considerably more if you effect the transfer properly).

- It pisses off and confuses registrants.

I'm a bit confused. Are you talking about REGISTRANT TRANSFERS or Tag Transfers? I don't understand how doing a registrant transfer (changing the registrant field) encourages improper transfers of domains or how it discourages up to date WHOIS data. And I'm not at all sure how people can sell a domain name for £10 on ebay (a .uk one) without costing in the Nominet Registrant Transfer fee. Can you explain? (Or have I misunderstood you?)

Finally, one thing to add to the debate in this thread: As PAB members it is your responsibility to see the wider picture and to take into account the views of all the stakeholders etc and I'm glad that you appear to be doing so. However it is not the responsibility of others to do the same, so in my view it's perhaps better to just take on board the views expressed in this thread (along with others) rather than arguing about minutiae, which is what tends to happen on Nom-Steer!

Fair point; except, I can't see how you can simply take onboard the views expressed here (many of them quite reasonable by the way) without explaining the fors and againsts. Otherwise, don't we go away leaving false hopes of what might happen in the future when what might actually happen largely depends on how a thing will affect the collective stakeholder communities? (I'm only asking the question, it's not a dig.)

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Hazel Pegg]

I fully accept that Nominet incur costs in transferring domains from A to B but in my view these should be absorbed into the massive pot of bunce that all the £5 registration fees go into*..

I guess that would be one way of doing it. It could also help reduce some of the problems you identify below ....

The charging of fees for transfers is bad because:

- It encourages improper transfers of domains (ie "I'll push to your account" without an actual legal transfer happening).

- It discourages accurate and up to date WHOIS data which in turn will lead to problems in year/s to come.

- It stifles the resale market for low value domains (ie if you sell a domain for £10 on eBay the price is actually considerably more if you effect the transfer properly).

- It pisses off and confuses registrants.

 

[retired_member16]

I'm a bit confused. Are you talking about REGISTRANT TRANSFERS or Tag Transfers? I don't understand how doing a registrant transfer (changing the registrant field) encourages improper transfers of domains or how it discourages up to date WHOIS data.

Simply because the majority of domain sales under the £100 mark do not bother with the registrant transfer.

 

[bb99]

I'm a bit confused. Are you talking about REGISTRANT TRANSFERS or Tag Transfers? I don't understand how doing a registrant transfer (changing the registrant field) encourages improper transfers of domains or how it discourages up to date WHOIS data. And I'm not at all sure how people can sell a domain name for £10 on ebay (a .uk one) without costing in the Nominet Registrant Transfer fee. Can you explain? (Or have I misunderstood you?)

I'm talking about registrant transfers.

An "improper" transfer would happen like this:

- Person A registers domain.co.uk through a mass registrar
- Person A sells domain.co.uk on eBay to person B for £10
- Person B pays person A £10
- Person A "pushes" the domain to Person B's account at the mass registrar
- Person B has full control of the domain, but the registrant field has not changed
- Person B is either ignorant of the correct transfer process, or has made a conscious decision not to pay the Nominet fee (perhaps without understanding the implications).

As to whether this is an issue depends on a number of things - such as what the registrant field actually says. It could say "none", it could say "domain.co.uk" or it could say "Frank Bloggs". Indeed, it could never become an issue as long as the renewal is paid. But if there's a DRS or if Person A dies and Nominet know about it (!) then there could be trouble.


Let's take another example:

- I've come up with a great business idea. I'm going to get a domain name and a limited company and everything. It's that good

- Let's assume my product/service/company is called "domain".

- I check the domain name and it's available. I check the company name, it's also available.

- I've read on the internet about these nasty people who register domain names when they hear of your product/service and even people who register domain names speculatively when new companies are formed (based on data they can get from Companies House).

- It's going to take 48 hours for me to get my limited company setup. But I want the domain now. So I register domain.co.uk. I can't register it in the name "Domain Limited" because that legal entity won't exist for another 48 hours. So I register it in my own name (maybe t/a Domain).

- Limited company is then formed - Domain Limited - lovely jubbly.

- To transfer the domain name to the Limited company is going to cost a nasty transfer fee. Hell, this is a startup, money is tight so I leave it in my name.


So there's a case where the WHOIS data is inaccurate on the basis that it should be in the company name rather than my own. And all because I didn't want to pay that transfer fee.

Now these are only examples so please don't spend time picking the bones out of each - but hopefully you get the point.

 

[Jac]

Simply because the majority of domain sales under the £100 mark do not bother with the registrant transfer.

Right. Got it now. :???: I misunderstood bb99's references before.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jac]

I'm talking about registrant transfers.

An "improper" transfer would happen like this:

- Person A registers domain.co.uk through a mass registrar
- Person A sells domain.co.uk on eBay to person B for £10
- Person B pays person A £10
- Person A "pushes" the domain to Person B's account at the mass registrar
- Person B has full control of the domain, but the registrant field has not changed
- Person B is either ignorant of the correct transfer process, or has made a conscious decision not to pay the Nominet fee (perhaps without understanding the implications).

As to whether this is an issue depends on a number of things - such as what the registrant field actually says. It could say "none", it could say "domain.co.uk" or it could say "Frank Bloggs". Indeed, it could never become an issue as long as the renewal is paid. But if there's a DRS or if Person A dies and Nominet know about it (!) then there could be trouble.

Taking on board your point about 'not picking the bones out of each' all I can say is this. It's a dangerous practice when the Contract of registration includes the obligation for each and every registrant to ensure their WHOIS details are correct and kept up to date.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]