WHOIS details

[olebean]

James

Perhaps some minor element was semantics, however the main thrust of the aguement pertains to Jays suggestion that domainers are not a significant holder of domains..... From the smallest of sample and contary to my own initial thoughts, the snapshot purely from the for sale section sub definition business sedo indicated over 500k of domains

Clearly if this sample is to believe 1) I am astounded that Jay could remotely define domainers as not holding significant domains 2) I would be equally astounded that Jay or anyone at Nominet a) didnt know and b) didnt believe that these figures were likely to increase given the decline in business numbers in the uk (yes I do know .uk are own by business outside the uk).

Equally, since the sample was taken from domains forsale and purely from sedo, it would be interesting to see "how deep the rabit hole goes" blue pill? I would say nominet wouldnt be interested to know or even what proportion in relation to other extensions. my gut feeling now if 25% does not seem unrealistic.... even higher maybe

You mention that the DRS was not setup to target domainers, however it was set does that mean that is how reality is? If you have read DRS cases, you would have noted what I believe and various other domainers have suggeted, that comments are made about the "dislike" of PPC etc...

In terms of the real issues, these issues exist in the reality the holding domainers have and the apparent "blind eye" to their existance. whilst nominet appears happy to take the money register the domains, in some cases knowing full well that issues occur or ought to have known. Nominet also know, should a complaint be made about the domains, they will charge "large sums" to adminster a proceedure that they have already sanctioned..... That in my view is a conflict of interests, vicarious liability ?

Equally, I am unsure in some cases nominet can enforce the DRS since there is no direct contract between domainers and nominet.....

with your view on bowing to the majority view, i have to agree that someimes as to be done, the only issue I have, the membership fees to nominet are prohibitive, nominey must know this, why has that not been changed to encourage grassroots opinion?

James

Are you telling me that nominet putting processes in place to encourage longer ownership and stability needs legal approval?

I dont want the government to condone domainers, they dont have too.... The government as I mentioned eariler in the thread has yet to take a positive/negative stance of domains that have been secured after the collapse of a business etc, this is a harbitor of insecurity.... Equally I am keen for the government t be pushed in terms of Taxation issues, they seem to be playing a waiting game.....

Omg james you dont truely believe in a democracy? how deluded, you must be a devoted labour voter!

 

[Jay Daley]

In reality, it is plusible to believe that of the 4 million suggested domains nominet manage, anywhere between 10 and 25% are likely to be held by domain property investors...

We need to be careful here with how we define investors and how much we think they are a cohereny community. If you were to stretch the definition to include all those that had registered a couple of nice names that they might want to use one day then maybe you could get between 10 and 25%. However I still believe the percentage is single figures.

Just to be clear there are number of different business models here, not all of which I think are fair to count as domainers. These models are

1. pay per click
2. sell them
3. rent them out
4. build businesses around them

More and more of the larger holders have moved from 2 to 3 and are now on 4. I would not count anyone doing 4 in the same group as people doing the others though.

 

[Jac]

Perhaps some minor element was semantics, however the main thrust of the aguement pertains to Jays suggestion that domainers are not a significant holder of domains..... From the smallest of sample and contary to my own initial thoughts, the snapshot purely from the for sale section sub definition business sedo indicated over 500k of domains

Clearly if this sample is to believe 1) I am astounded that Jay could remotely define domainers as not holding significant domains 2) I would be equally astounded that Jay or anyone at Nominet a) didnt know and b) didnt believe that these figures were likely to increase given the decline in business numbers in the uk (yes I do know .uk are own by business outside the uk).

"Significant domains" does not equate to significant representation.

One domainer only represents themselves and their own vested interests. Even if they hold 1 million domain names in their investment portfolio, they do not represent the interests or wishes of 1 million registrants. Similarly, I do not believe any one Tag Holder who holds hundreds of thousands of registrations (on their tag) represents each and every registrant. IMHO vested interests have no place in the governance of the .uk registry. This is a community, and it would be nice if people showed a tad more social responsibility (or corporate social responsibility)! Just as there is a conflict of interests in suggesting that one registrant should take precedence over another because of domain wealth, there is a conflict of interests in one tag holder trying to control the .uk registry. The .uk registry should act in the interests of all stakeholders equally; not just those rich in domain names.

In terms of the real issues, these issues exist in the reality the holding domainers have and the apparent "blind eye" to their existance. whilst nominet appears happy to take the money register the domains, in some cases knowing full well that issues occur or ought to have known. Nominet also know, should a complaint be made about the domains, they will charge "large sums" to adminster a proceedure that they have already sanctioned..... That in my view is a conflict of interests, vicarious liability ?

You keep saying things like "Nominet appears happy to take the money and register the domains" but domainers are equally (if not more) happy to pay the money and register the domains. Whilst Nominet may not make hundreds of thousands out of one individual domainer, the domainer lives in the hope that they will indeed make hundreds of thousands out of their investment porfolio. That's their business model.

If you want to talk 'conflict of interests' then it exists in a business model that effectively takes hundreds of thousands of reasonably good domain names out of circulation which could otherwise be registered by reasonably good registrants who just don't have the fastest script in the west to dropcatch said domains. Nowt wrong with making money out of other people; that's capitalism; but don't feign indignance because of a .uk system (including DRS) that applies equally to all registrants.

Equally, I am unsure in some cases nominet can enforce the DRS since there is no direct contract between domainers and nominet.

I'm sure we've been here before but here are the facts again.

The direct contract of registration is between the registrant and Nominet; the Terms and Conditions, which you all know are there, are indeed a direct contract.

with your view on bowing to the majority view, i have to agree that someimes as to be done, the only issue I have, the membership fees to nominet are prohibitive, nominey must know this, why has that not been changed to encourage grassroots opinion?

We have also been here before but here are the facts again. The membership fees are based on 'cost recovery'. The idea that everything on the Internet should be free is a legacy left over from the late 90s when all those companies purporting to give it all away free mostly went bust within a year. Free is worth what you pay for it and cheap is what it says it is (ask all those people having problems with a certain low cost registrar in another thread).

Free doesn't allow for the fact that the infrastructure that keeps all this alleged free stuff alive is a Spanish holiday resort called Costa Plenty! Read my lips, nothing's free, not when you add up all the incidentals and time and energy wasted when you can't get the service you thought you'd signed up to in the first place.

As an aside, those are some of the reasons for the Raising Industry Standards consultation! Your responses are welcome.

Are you telling me that nominet putting processes in place to encourage longer ownership and stability needs legal approval?

No... but you didn't ask me that! If you are talking about longer registration periods, this has been discussed before and rejected. However, this does not mean it can't be discussed again and it probably will be.

Omg james you dont truely believe in a democracy? how deluded, you must be a devoted labour voter!

Erm... I am not a devoted labour voter, though I believe everyone that can, should vote where possible; it's the only way to make your opinion count. Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Thomas Jefferson said: "That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part." No form of government is perfect but if you're comparing, go live in Bosnia and Herzegovina or China and then tell me UK democracy isn't grand.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[olebean]

Jay

Thanks for the reply

We need to be careful here with how we define investors and how much we think they are a cohereny community. If you were to stretch the definition to include all those that had registered a couple of nice names that they might want to use one day then maybe you could get between 10 and 25%. However I still believe the percentage is single figures.

I am unsure why you need to be careful with how you wish to define investors or in defining them why they need to be aparty of any community and you offer no plausible or quantifiable reasoning why this should be the case....

I find it interesting you feel it is reasonable to believe that potentially over 320000 individuals could have thought about a project regged 2-3 domains but decided to do nothing but hold onto the domains, (in some cases then submit domains forsale and PPC). Yet you are swiftly dismissive of the opposing view.. I conceed there may well be a number of domainers who regged in that way but all of the potential 0.5% of the population?

It would also be nice to know whether any study has been conducted into the ratios and definitions of ownership ....... if there has what were the results ... if there hasnt why hasnt nominet conducted research?

Just to be clear there are number of different business models here, not all of which I think are fair to count as domainers. These models are

1. pay per click
2. sell them
3. rent them out
4. build businesses around them

More and more of the larger holders have moved from 2 to 3 and are now on 4. I would not count anyone doing 4 in the same group as people doing the others though.

I note from the definition there is no definition of domainers?

I find it interesting that you suggest more and more larger holders rent domains out.... Do you have numbers? I have noted that not many of the domainers on here chat about it, when they do the is a distinct lack of knowledge....

By definition are they still domainers, when there model does include PPC etc when a rental period concludes, or are they no longer domainers if they rent one domain out?

 

[olebean]

"Significant domains" does not equate to significant representation.

One domainer only represents themselves and their own vested interests. Even if they hold 1 million domain names in their investment portfolio, they do not represent the interests or wishes of 1 million registrants. Similarly, I do not believe any one Tag Holder who holds hundreds of thousands of registrations (on their tag) represents each and every registrant. IMHO vested interests have no place in the governance of the .uk registry. This is a community, and it would be nice if people showed a tad more social responsibility (or corporate social responsibility)! Just as there is a conflict of interests in suggesting that one registrant should take precedence over another because of domain wealth, there is a conflict of interests in one tag holder trying to control the .uk registry. The .uk registry should act in the interests of all stakeholders equally; not just those rich in domain names.

Forgive me James but i can recall in my previous thread suggesting ways from increased revenue for nominet, the government etc, I am sure these are not my own vested interests, but of corporate and social concern.. Equally forgive me, but is not a stakeholder a consumer? Neither have I argued for greater rights those with greater domain names (meaning numbers).

You keep saying things like "Nominet appears happy to take the money and register the domains" but domainers are equally (if not more) happy to pay the money and register the domains. Whilst Nominet may not make hundreds of thousands out of one individual domainer, the domainer lives in the hope that they will indeed make hundreds of thousands out of their investment porfolio. That's their business model.

So you are suggesting that its reasonable for nominet to sell a dream know full well this dream can never exist or they could pull it away at a wim? :???:

don't feign indignance because of a .uk system (including DRS) that applies equally to all registrants

indignant yes feign i dont think so! It would be nice to feel morally indignant towards it, one can dream!

I'm sure we've been here before but here are the facts again.

The direct contract of registration is between the registrant and Nominet; the Terms and Conditions, which you all know are there, are indeed a direct contract.

You will be aware of contract law / case law? Whether or not nominet has terms and conditions does not mean in any form that those are imposeable on a domain holders registration if a registrar does not make their terms and conditions subject to nominets terms (triangluar contracts!)

In terms of fees.... Again I cannot recall proposing, suggesting or other, for free membership

Thomas Jefferson said: "That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part"

Time will tell if nominet does become more democratic!

 

[Jac]

Forgive me James but i can recall in my previous thread suggesting ways from increased revenue for nominet, the government etc, I am sure these are not my own vested interests, but of corporate and social concern..

If that's what you meant I stand corrected in my assumptions.

Equally forgive me, but is not a stakeholder a consumer?

A stakeholder may indeed be a consumer but not always. IANAL; but if a stakeholder is a business, I doubt they'd be recognised as a consumer (in terms of business agreements, contracts, or contract law).

That said, it doesn't make much difference to my thinking that all stakeholders should be treated equally in terms of Nominet's mission statement, the Terms and Conditions, and the DRS.

Neither have I argued for greater rights those with greater domain names (meaning numbers).

Then forgive me, because your argument always seems to suggest greater rights for domainers in terms of the DRS, because you always seem to argue that it treats them unfairly. If I got that wrong too, you have my apologies; but that's what your terminology suggests to me.

So you are suggesting that its reasonable for nominet to sell a dream know full well this dream can never exist or they could pull it away at a wim? :???:

Nominet sells domain names, not dreams; but I see where you're coming from. If you are referring to the DRS as a 'whim' this is kinda like suggesting 'contracts don't matter so we'll sign 'em anyway cos they can't be enforced'. That kind of suggestion is counterproductive, because the contract of registration exists whether one chooses to accept it or not; and it exists at the point of registration. Having said all that, there is nothing whimsical about the DRS; it applies to everyone equally; and lest it be forgotten, not all cases are decided in favour of the complainant. But the nature of a dispute (any dispute) is that the complainant feels they have a justifiable case; the nature of an appeal is that the losing party feels the decision was wrong. (This principle is ostensibly the same in a court of law.)

indignant yes feign i dont think so! It would be nice to feel morally indignant towards it, one can dream!

Yes, one can indeed dream; but forgive me all over the place if I think one should also temper one's dreams with just a hint of reality.

You will be aware of contract law / case law? Whether or not nominet has terms and conditions does not mean in any form that those are imposeable on a domain holders registration if a registrar does not make their terms and conditions subject to nominets terms (triangluar contracts!)

I'm afraid you would have a hard time proving this contention in court. Each Tag Holder (registrar) is obliged by the Tag Holder Agreement (THA) to point the registrant to Nominet's Terms and Conditions of registration. If a Tag Holder is not doing so, then it is the Tag Holder who is at fault, not Nominet. The Tag Holder is specifically obliged to point out, to the registrant, that the contract of registration is between themselves and Nominet. See here: THA. The relevant sentence on this webpage is: "There are also various obligations for the tag holder, including the need to show your registrants our terms and conditions".

If you believe one or other Tag Holder is not doing this, please point out the error of their ways to them, and if that doesn't work, contact Nominet and point it out to them.

In terms of fees.... Again I cannot recall proposing, suggesting or other, for free membership

I refer you back to what you wrote here:

the only issue I have, the membership fees to nominet are prohibitive, nominey must know this, why has that not been changed to encourage grassroots opinion?

Why did you refer to the Membership fees as "prohibitive" and ask "why has that not been changed" if you did not feel they should be free or otherwise minimised? I try not to misrepresent other people's words, but I can only read into them what seems to be there.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jay Daley]

I find it interesting you feel it is reasonable to believe that potentially over 320000 individuals could have thought about a project regged 2-3 domains but decided to do nothing but hold onto the domains, (in some cases then submit domains forsale and PPC). Yet you are swiftly dismissive of the opposing view.. I conceed there may well be a number of domainers who regged in that way but all of the potential 0.5% of the population?

I don't understand what you mean by the opposite.

If there are some domainers with huge domain name holding, that are not tag holders, then who are they? Domainers have a lot to say and interact with our systems a lot but that does not translate into the hundreds of thousands of registrations that you think it does.

Here is a little maths to help with this. Look at the voting rights of a tag, deduct one and multiply the remainder by 500, that gives you a rough idea of the number of domains they have. Then total all the figures for dropcatcher/domainers that you can see. Does that total 250,000 (5%)? Not even close as far as I can see.

It seems to me like you are constructing a whole gestalt around the domainer/drop catcher community that I really can't see any evidence of.

 

[sneezycheese]

If there are some domainers with huge domain name holding, that are not tag holders, then who are they? Domainers have a lot to say and interact with our systems a lot but that does not translate into the hundreds of thousands of registrations that you think it does.

It seems to me like you are constructing a whole gestalt around the domainer/drop catcher community that I really can't see any evidence of.

New thread started to ask this question: http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/nominet-general-information/6728-poll-domainers-how-many-uk-domains-do-you-hold.html

 

[olebean]

Jay

That is an interesting point you through up and gestalt some of my argument maybe....

The arguement you pursue relies on an element of bevourism that domainers may take, becoming a TAG holder, in essense, that definition would or could include eurodns who use sedo parking pages "by default" when a domain has been registered...

I would agree there are political active domainers, who are TAG holders and put suggestion forward to nominet, there are active TAG holder domains, who dont get involved with political issues..... Then there are domainers who are active that dont have a TAG (there are different types), which you dont seem to recognise as domainers.... In not recognising the latter, it that sense it makes a nonsense of the poll sneezy is suggesting.....

Oh, and you didnt comment on whether there has been any study conducted by nominet......

 

[Jay Daley]

That is an interesting point you through up and gestalt some of my argument maybe....

The arguement you pursue relies on an element of bevourism that domainers may take, becoming a TAG holder, in essense, that definition would or could include eurodns who use sedo parking pages "by default" when a domain has been registered...

Eh? Is this a Stanley Unwin moment?

Then there are domainers who are active that dont have a TAG (there are different types), which you dont seem to recognise as domainers.... In not recognising the latter, it that sense it makes a nonsense of the poll sneezy is suggesting.....

No, I'm quite happy to recognise them, it's the numbers I'm arguing about. If there is anyone who is interested enough in domains to have hundreds or thousands then I think the chances of them not being a tag holder are very remote indeed. It would mean paying much more and having much less control. Anyone who has that many domains will definitely be taking it more seriously than that.

So by that logic, we are left trying to estimate the number of domainers, with possibly tens of domains who are not tag holders. To achieve the level of figures that you are talking about there would need to be tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of them. Again, this is something I don't see any evidence of.

Oh, and you didnt comment on whether there has been any study conducted by nominet......

We have done some analysis on related areas, but nothing that intersects with this discussion enough to sway the argument.

 

[sneezycheese]

If there is anyone who is interested enough in domains to have hundreds or thousands then I think the chances of them not being a tag holder are very remote indeed. It would mean paying much more and having much less control.

So tag holder pays £5.00, while a 1&1 customer pays £3.98... God it's soo much more expensive not being a tag holder.

So by that logic, we are left trying to estimate the number of domainers, with possibly tens of domains who are not tag holders.

Sorry Jay, but this is utter Rubbish!!! ...Please refer to the dictionary term of a domainer that I've quoted.

To achieve the level of figures that you are talking about there would need to be tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of them.

Sorry Jay, but this is even more utter Rubbish!!!

I've met some cowboys in my time but Nominet - It would seem they're in a world of their own.

PS: I'm looking for legal representation, anyone interested???

 

[Whois-Search]

PS: I'm looking for legal representation, anyone interested???

I heard you can get a good domain expert for £3000 + VAT

 

[olebean]

Jay

So you believe that domainers suddenly purchase 200 domains ?

I think you will find that portfolios build over time, before they know it 10 becomes 20, 20 becomes 50 etc etc

Oh and I am talking about the "current" domain climate not in the early days...

It is interesting there has been no study..... Why not?...

 

[olebean]

I refer you back to what you wrote here:


Why did you refer to the Membership fees as "prohibitive" and ask "why has that not been changed" if you did not feel they should be free or otherwise minimised? I try not to misrepresent other people's words, but I can only read into them what seems to be there.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

Why £400-00? why not a lower figure?

It is prohibitive by the level of the joining fee..... If you join a gym they don't charge 4 times the annual fee as the joining fee..... Even in top golf clubs they dont charge such a disproportionate figure.

Should I start another "straw poll" to see if this is true?

 

[aqls]

Netserve.co.uk charge £2.59 per annum for domains
Nominet charge £2.50

£400 joining fee divided by 9 pence = 4,444

so you need to have 4,444 domains before you should even consider getting a tag.

Plus how the heck are you then going to administer them, auto renew etc etc without techie knowledge.

It is not even good business sense to get a tag at these levels.

-aqls-


p.s. has anyone asked sedo how many .co.uk domains they serve?

I'm convinced that the number of domains registered by people not as their business's one and only website is much greater that people think.
(as investment, parking, affiliate, blocking, names, = domainers)

 

[olebean]

aqls

It had crossed my mind, I felt they would be reluctanat to release such information considering the number of published sales..

Having said that, given Jays position on definition of domainers that number would be irrelevant......

I am more convinced that a full blown study is needed, but I am not sure nominet would either co-operate or sanction such a study

 

[aqls]

from what I see, they are a pretty well run organisation, (with a few purple/brown bruised bits) and I'm sure if it was of strategic importance they would consider it.

I don't see it as too hard to get a ballpark figure.

With access to the database, and some scripting to classify domain useage online, it would probably not be too hard.

Definitions can and should wait until some qualitative investigation has been made into the different ways people use their domains anyhow.

-aqls-

 

[Jac]

Why £400-00? why not a lower figure?

I keep answering the same question olebean and I can't change the answer which is simply this; because that is the figure that was set in the early days as being "cost recovery". As a point of interest, it hasn't changed since 1999 when I became a member and it seems fair and reasonable to suggest that everything goes up with inflation; yet Nominet has kept its membership fees constant.

It is prohibitive by the level of the joining fee..... If you join a gym they don't charge 4 times the annual fee as the joining fee..... Even in top golf clubs they dont charge such a disproportionate figure.

Should I start another "straw poll" to see if this is true?

The last time I joined a gym it cost me £36 a month (£432 a year) and that's going back a few years; and it didn't decrease as time went on. But to be fair, gyms and golf clubs are bad examples because of the associated costs of ongoing membership. Conversely, Nominet's membership fees actually go down to 25% of the joining fee in subsequent years; so I don't see your logic on that score. If you want to join something (as in anything) there are always associated costs. Try getting ICANN accredited! Kinda makes Nominet's membership fees look like manna from heaven.

PS: I have to say olebean, I don't quite get why everything has to be a war of words on here, some of us are just trying to give you facts you can work with and the tendency seems to be to treat all things Nominet like the enemy when all Nominet is, is a registry offering registry services. Every single registry on the planet has rules on how they interact with their members, shareholders, or stakeholders.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member}

 

[Jac]

So tag holder pays £5.00, while a 1&1 customer pays £3.98... God it's soo much more expensive not being a tag holder.

For the record, no tag holder gets preferential prices over another; each one pays the same, big or small, but I doubt many tag holders make their profit on domain names alone. What some tag holders choose to do with loss leaders is down to their business model and just as Tesco or Asda will entice you into their stores with "2 for the price of 1" offers, the chances are you won't leave said stores with just those special offers. The whole point of loss leaders is to entice you to buy more from said stores and it's no different with low cost domain names.

However; value is relative; and caveat emptor applies.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[Jac]

Netserve.co.uk charge £2.59 per annum for domains
Nominet charge £2.50

£400 joining fee divided by 9 pence = 4,444

so you need to have 4,444 domains before you should even consider getting a tag.

I am sure a lot of tag holders become members/tag holders for the convience of having direct control over the domain names on their tag; they can modify things via the Automaton within seconds.

I assume by 9 pence you are referring to a certain low cost registrar? Well; how many more customers than 4,444 do you think they have? And then add up the incidentals that go with most of the accounts on offer there; and then remember that not only domainers buy from said low cost registrar. Low cost registrars/tag holders have hundreds of thousands of individual customers paying a lot more per domain name plus email/hosting account than you guys. It's a loss leader sales tactic to entice people to buy other services and it is the other services on offer that are the valued added bits for tag holders.

Plus how the heck are you then going to administer them, auto renew etc etc without techie knowledge.

Now yer cooking with gas! You have identified the catch22 in all of this. Any company has to invest heavily in its infrastructure and loss leader marketing is a numbers game. The more customers you can solicit the more those 9 pences and 19 (and more) quids per year add up; and cumulatively, they add up to millions per year. Every now and then one of 'em gets lucky and gets bought up. The founder of Fasthosts is now worth about £40million. Nice little earner Arthur. But the point is (lest you forget) it's a lot of hard work and sleepless nights to get to that stage. Nothing is for nothing.

It is not even good business sense to get a tag at these levels.

It does if you get the formula right, but it's hard work staying at the top of a precarious business model and you really have to be on the ball 24/7.

So yes, there is a point to being a tag holder, it's not just about immediate profit on domain names, it's about value added services.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]