bb99

Full article here:

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/...A50%3A02%3A423

Shoddy journalism though - it's a .org domain they've lost and yet they have a quote from Nominet which indirectly suggests it's their fault.

If I were the council, I'd be instructing my lawyers against Easyspace - they seem to have pretty much admitted liability. Surely this sort of thing is covered by Easyspace's professional indemnity insurance??

__________________
Droppr - finely tuned .uk dropcatching for Nominet members
Gazebo | Flyers, Postcards | Tree Surveys | Dent Repairs Leeds | Poster Printing

retired_member6

Considering it's a council I'm sure they have the funds to sue easyspace and get the name back?

retired_member6

For some reason I don't like easyspace anyway so them being sued might teach 'em a lesson.

domaingenius

In fact I used to work as van driver with the guy that started Easyspace not far from me (or indeed from Admin) and had nickname of "fruit bat". Always had that aura about him that knew he would go on to bigger and better things and he did. Sold easyspace for multi millions after only few years.
As for this thing. IF ,and I say if, Easy space did ;
"Easyspace offered the council £135 to buy it back from Neonshark, if it could be traced." then I would say that they have admitted liability indirectly and maybe directly,

DG

Jac

Like 'em or loathe 'em, most of these big companies have protection built-in to their Terms and Conditions. Here's a quote from Easyspace's Ts&Cs.

" 3.12 You are solely responsible for ensuring the Services are renewed. WE SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE RENEWAL OR ANY ATTEMPT TO RENEW THE SERVICES AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY FAILURE OR ERRORS IN RENEWING OR ATTEMPTING TO RENEW THE SERVICES. The foregoing limitation of liability is in addition to any other limitations of liability set forth in this Agreement. "

At the end of the day (and unpalatable as it may be) the ultimate responsibility for ensuring a domain name is actually renewed lies with the registrant.

Regards
James Conaghan

domaingenius

Ah yes James, but what about the implications of PARTS of the sex.com Judgment made by the Supreme Court in USA. Yes I know the overall case was about different scenario but the implications of parts of the Judgment
on this case are quite large, including the fact that they determined that a domain was indeed "property" and as such warranted the same care and conduct ?. Some parts could easily be used in this claim, or indeed any similar matter. Maybe that the Council will have to look at USA ?.

DG

bb99

Baah! I was under the impression that you couldn't limit your liability in T&Cs like that. At the end of the day, if you've lost a domain name for a customer then you've lost the name and it was you what did it - bang to rights.

It's completely unreasonable to expect the customer to keep tabs on it - that's what they pay the service provider for.

Maybe someone with a bit more legal knowledge than I could comment?

__________________
Droppr - finely tuned .uk dropcatching for Nominet members
Gazebo | Flyers, Postcards | Tree Surveys | Dent Repairs Leeds | Poster Printing

Jac

The problem with the sex.com judgment is that courts in different states within the United States seem to find differently. In the sex.com case, a Federal Appellate Court found that a domain name is “property” and that domain name registrars should be held liable for the conduct of 3rd parties when someone interferes with the property interests of a domain name registrant by stealing their domain name.

However, there are federal cases that have expressly found that a domain name is not tangible; as in not real property; and at least one state Supreme Court found that domain names should be considered services rather than property. The Supreme Court of Virginia found that domain names are not proper subjects for "garnishment". IMHO, whilst the law of probabilities may suggest that domain names show features of both tangible and intangible property, the fact is, the scope of a property interest in a domain name varies widely in the United States and different states create and define property interests not Federal courts.

The point is, I don't think any of us can say for certain how A N Other American Court might find in the future.

Regards
James Conaghan

Jac

I'd say it would depend on the circumstances, and I'd also suggest the reason registrars seek to limit their liability in regard to services like domain name registration/renewal is simply 'cause and effect'. If they can be sued over a 20 or 30 quid domain name which they probably make sod all out of anyway (domain names at registration level are not profit centres, just loss leaders) then why wouldn't they seek to limit their liability?

"The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot. It can't be done". John Ruskin 1819-1900.

Why is it unreasonable to expect the registrant to keep tabs on their own domain names? They own 'em don't they? Would they treat their car tax or council tax with such disregard?

Regards
James Conaghan

bb99

Well you have to put it in context.

We're moving away from the circumstances in the article (not that it gives us the exact circumstances) but if you pay someone to look after your domain name and they say "would you like to renew" and you say "yes" and pay for it and they cash your cheque and tell you it's sorted, then why should you have to double check what they're doing and that it was actually renewed? You're paying them to deal with it for you. They are a reputable company. I put it to you, sir, that it is "unreasonable" to have to do so yourself.

__________________
Droppr - finely tuned .uk dropcatching for Nominet members
Gazebo | Flyers, Postcards | Tree Surveys | Dent Repairs Leeds | Poster Printing