WHOIS details

[Jac]

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...

For the record, and to clarify your alleged facts, I have checked back in the PAB records and with the relevant people, and here are the facts.

With regard to your totally incorrect statement; if you replace 'inland revenue' with 'Treasury Solicitor' and 'receivership' with 'dissolved companies' then there is a history here, but there was never any gentleman's agreement; more a disagreement!

In the words of the immortal Basil Fawlty as he poked Manuel in the eye with his finger; "Let me explain". It used to be the case prior to positive renewals that some domain name registrations would come to light after companies were dissolved and the Treasury Solicitor would sometimes claim them (though not always) under the bona vacantia rules. The registrations were then auctioned on a Treasury Solicitor website and the money raised was passed to The Crown. This was not popular and Nominet received a number of complaints as did the Treasury Solicitor.

Therefore, back in 2004, an issue was raised as part of the Terms and Conditions of Registration Review and as a result, the Terms and Conditions were changed so that a domain name registered to a company would be automatically cancelled upon dissolution of the company. The Treasury Solicitor was against this change as reported in the October 2004 PAB report, which stated:

8. Terms and Conditions Review
It was noted that the terms and conditions paper was sent to the PAB for information following consultation. Michael Duggan (DTI) reported that he had been contacted by the Bona Vacantia Department of the Treasury Solicitor regarding the final version of Nominet's revised Terms and Conditions. They were unhappy with the fact that under the new terms a domain name registered to a company that had been dissolved, e.g. post liquidation, would be cancelled automatically and that this was a major change to the version put out to consultation and discussed by the PAB in February. Lesley Cowley (CEO) responded that there had been several communications between Nominet and the Treasury Solicitor on this issue. They had been informed of the suggested changes regarding the cancellation of domain names and invited to make a submission to the PAB meeting, but had failed to do so. The PAB noted the concerns of the Treasury Solicitor on the matter. Lesley Cowley advised the PAB that the new Terms and Conditions had been approved by the Plain English Campaign and had achieved their Crystal Mark for clarity.

Resolution: The PAB resolved to note the CoM's proposal to implement the new terms and conditions and that they will be published in accordance with the CoM's proposal.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Them's the facts.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[olebean]

Manuel James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

Glad you finally agreed with me James! Although additional comments where made......

The fact is at the point of receivership title goes to the treasury, however, at this point where there is too much hassle the treasury has chosen for what ever reseaon chosen not to chase the issue. The fear is, should domains become defined has having "intrinsic value" the revenue may choose to chase domains while title was taken away. Ironically, and without checking T&C I wonder who will be chased I doubt T&C will allow for more recourse than domain reg fees....

The question is, is it within nominets interests to have a business strategy that looks for domain turnover rather than resale value....?

 

[Jac]

Glad you finally agreed with me James!

LOL... if that's what you call agreement I'll take it under advisement!

Although additional comments where made......

The fact is at the point of receivership title goes to the treasury,

If you read my comments again, you will find that title does not go (or perhaps more correctly, no longer goes) to the treasury at the point of receivership. :???: However, I won't get bogged down in technicalities; life's too short.

however, at this point where there is too much hassle the treasury has chosen for what ever reseaon chosen not to chase the issue. The fear is, should domains become defined has having "intrinsic value" the revenue may choose to chase domains while title was taken away. Ironically, and without checking T&C I wonder who will be chased I doubt T&C will allow for more recourse than domain reg fees....

I do not disagree that domain names have "intrinsic value"; any commodity has a value to a buyer. I only disagree (I think) with the suggestion that a domain name is 'property' but only because English Law tells me so.

The question is, is it within nominets interests to have a business strategy that looks for domain turnover rather than resale value....?

Currently, Nominet does not have any interest in the resale value of domain names. The management of .uk is the core function of the company. The current mission statement is "to manage the .uk country code top-level domain and to provide internet registry services, responding to the needs of our stakeholders". The full strategy document can be found here.

So I'd say it's fair to say the business strategy is to look after the registry of .uk domain names. In your words, I guess that equates to "domain turnover".

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jay Daley]

If I could just go back to the original complaints about the £30 transfer fee.

First, I should make it clear that we recognise the surprise that many registrants feel when they discover this fee, in contrast to the way that other registries work. There are reasons for this fee, which I will explain in a moment, but we do recognise that the market has come on considerably since this process was started and that we are somewhat unusual in this respect.

So to explain the fee. The transfer is currently a manual process that can be initiated by either the existing registrant or new registrant. The tasks we perform are
1. check that there are no disputes, unpaid bills or other reason this cannot proceed.
2. check that the person claiming to be the current registrant really is the current registrant and that they really do want to transfer the domain
3. check the details supplied by the new registrant to make sure that they really are who they say they are.

Now checks 2 and 3 are very thorough and take some time. This time is what creates the cost that you see reflected in the fee.

The result of such a process is a very sound and very rarely (if ever) compromised transfer system. However we do understand that many people would like the balance to tilt more towards convenience than security.

 

[bb99]

Jay

I argued with you and Lesley about the £30 transfer fee at the Leeds Members' lunch in 2004 so my response here will come as no surprise. I fully appreciate your point as to the work involved in a transfer - I actually like the security offered by the Nominet transfer procedure... I understand that it costs money but I think it should be paid for out of the registration "pot" rather than on a per transfer basis.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. In the mean time I will continue to moan, complain and bust your balls about it at every available opportunity .

 

[retired_member26]

<We manage over four million domain names, making us the world's fourth largest Internet registry. With 3,000 members, 130 staff and a turnover of £12m, we play a key role at the heart of UK e-commerce>

<There was discussion about what type of corporation the Registry should be. The options to set-up as a profit-making company or a charity were rejected, and Nominet was established in 1996 as a private, not-for-profit company, limited by guarantee>

I assume 1% of total registrations are subject to transfers annually. Then it makes 40K*30=1.2 MGBP out of 12 M GBP, namely 10% which COULD be well absorbed from registration fees for a Not for profit! company.

TurNIC

 

[olebean]

Unlike you guys (BB and TURN)

I really don't have an issue with the tranfer fee, I would sooner have the security in place. I do wonder how nominet check on the new (transfer) registarants and why they feel the need to do it when they dont check on newly regged domains?

From what I have read it does make me question whether they consult to be seen to be consulting, or whether issues raised are used to changed the business.....

 

[rob]

I really don't have an issue with the tranfer fee, I would soon have the security in place.

^This.

However I would be in favour of those who are tag / members etc getting a discount in a similar manner to registrations.

ie. us domainers who do a pile of transfers dont pay for the 'fact finding missions' to see how exactly hawaii run their registries...

 

[olebean]

us domainers who do a pile of transfers dont pay for the 'fact finding missions' to see how exactly hawaii run their registries...

Thats a strange one, only in that as Jac suggests, nominet don't appear in favour of "that type" of transaction. If indeed that is true, there is no point to the discussions....

 

[Jac]

I really don't have an issue with the tranfer fee, I would sooner have the security in place. I do wonder how nominet check on the new (transfer) registarants and why they feel the need to do it when they dont check on newly regged domains?

I would hazard a guess that Nominet don't do it on newly regged domains because it would add days to the registration process (registrant > tag holder > Nominet > tag holder > registrant). Is that kind of delay in anyone's interests? However, Clause 4.1 of the Rules states: "We reserve the right to check your application for compliance with the Rules either before or after your Domain Name is registered or renewed with us".

Registrant Transfers are re-active as opposed to pro-active and from a legal standpoint; as with any contract; the Registry has to establish who both parties are. If the first is not the legal (as in proper) registrant, then catch22 applies and they have no right to transfer the name.

From what I have read it does make me question whether they consult to be seen to be consulting, or whether issues raised are used to changed the business.....

The alternative would seem to be that they don't or won't consult and personally I believe it is an absolute necessity for any community led organisation to consult with the community (aka the stakeholder). The problem is also catch22 related; it seems they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. But I'd still rather see them consulting than not.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jay Daley]

Some more things to add to the debate:
1. Over time our processes have become more automated, less paper based and, some would say, less bureaucratic. It used to be the case that new registrations would result in a paper certificate being sent out, with a form on the back to correct the registration details. Each of these returned forms was checked by quite a thorough process before being input to the register.

This has now changed and most of the changes are handled automatically through our online systems.

2. The vast majority of domains do not need a transfer, which is why this is not absorbed in the registration cost. All the discussion we have had internally about this settle on the same point. We will only build things into the base fee if they are used by a very high proportion of the registrants.

3. I have to challenge the view that appears to be gaining traction recently that domainers are somehow paying us a large proportion of our income and so deserve a much greater say in how we operate. To the best of my knowledge this is simply not true. The only way it could be true is if large numbers of the domains our biggest customers register come from domainers. I don't believe that is the case.

Drop-catchers, domainers are important to us. I, in particular, spend time engaged in this forum and dealing with drop catchers individually, in a way that is probably a disproportionate use of my time. But I think it's important to do this.

However, what some need to recognise is that we are a very broad church. Our membership if far larger than the registrar base of any other registry, we have the unusual three way contract and we are very attentive to the wider views of civil society and government. It's in this context that our policies are developed, rather than at the behest of any single pressure group.

--
Sorry for such a long post.

 

[olebean]

3. I have to challenge the view that appears to be gaining traction recently that domainers are somehow paying us a large proportion of our income and so deserve a much greater say in how we operate. To the best of my knowledge this is simply not true. The only way it could be true is if large numbers of the domains our biggest customers register come from domainers. I don't believe that is the case.

Jay Are you saying that nominet keep statitics on these issues or is this a "gut" feeling.

If its a "gut" feeling, then surely the opposite is also true.

 

[Beasty]

2. The vast majority of domains do not need a transfer, which is why this is not absorbed in the registration cost. All the discussion we have had internally about this settle on the same point. We will only build things into the base fee if they are used by a very high proportion of the registrants.

As I understand it, the DRS is only invoked in a small % of domains. Should the same argument not therefore apply to the costs incurred at Nominet in running it? I know that the Expert's fees are cost neutral, but there is an overhead in the legal department that is paid for by the registration fees of all domains. I don't think that it's necessarily wrong to do that - but if it's right for the DRS, then why is it not right for transfers?

 

[Jac]

As I understand it, the DRS is only invoked in a small % of domains. Should the same argument not therefore apply to the costs incurred at Nominet in running it? I know that the Expert's fees are cost neutral, but there is an overhead in the legal department that is paid for by the registration fees of all domains. I don't think that it's necessarily wrong to do that - but if it's right for the DRS, then why is it not right for transfers?

Personally I think this is a fair point. So let me ask you a hypothetical question. Would you be happy with the current checks that Nominet does (to establish the identity of the person seeking the transfer and the person accepting it) without the £30.00 cost bit?

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[aqls]

yep, it should cost £5 and you get another 2 years registration thrown in!

It'd completely open up the market for the lesser priced domain transfers, thereby reducing the "hoarding" that these horrible cybersquatters do with these things, hoping that one day the fees will be more respectable.

Everyone wins.

-aqls-

 

[olebean]

cybersquatters

-aqls-

aqls

It does make me laugh that term.... Anyone any idea wher the term came from?

 

[retired_member16]

Personally I think this is a fair point. So let me ask you a hypothetical question. Would you be happy with the current checks that Nominet does (to establish the identity of the person seeking the transfer and the person accepting it) without the £30.00 cost bit?

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

No, I dont think the checks are required. No fee, no checks. Simple transfer.

 

[texidriver]

In order to allow us to issue a Transfer of Domain Name Registration form we will need to know the specific domain name concerned, a contact name and the postal address to which the forms should be issued. You can request a form by contacting Registrant Services at [email protected], by fax to (01865) 332295 or by post to Nominet UK, Sandford Gate, Sandy Lane West, Oxford, United Kingdom OX4 6LB.

Why can't we just download the form, it could take weeks just to get the form.

How many domains does Nominet transfer per year X £30.00=

 

[retired_member6]

the only way I can see getting around the posting of the forms is to have a registered fax number, would that work? then it can be downloaded unless the person stealing your domain is in your house?

 

[retired_member16]

Do people still use fax machines ?

Its easy to get your own number, so you could have it forwarded elsewhere (or someone else could)