Jac

Well that's one way of looking at it. If you want another view on what the EURid arbitrar thinks is "fair" take a look here. The last few paragraphs are the crux of the article.

The point being, I bet the organisation losing the domain name didn't think it was "fair" but I'll also bet the organisation receiving it, did. So how do we judge what's fair and who actually makes that judgement? Surely only the registry (from whence all domain names spring) can make that call?

Regards
James Conaghan

Jac

The quick answer is no, Nominet don't refuse renewal requests. The
policy said that domain names registered before October 2004 would not be
subject to the rule change unless transferred or cancelled.

That said, I am told that Nominet is investigating what, if anything, needs to be put in place for this November (when the first post October 2004 registrations are up for renewal) and I'll let you know when I know.

Regards
James Conaghan

tifosi

I think they missed their opportunity when the large batch of .me.uk dropped in april. I seem to remember a free for all then.

S

texidriver

www.farming.me.uk

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAss...53_farming.pdf

"The Expert directs that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

Farming Online Limited"

Registrant type:
UK Limited Company, (Company number: xxx)

9.4.1. Where, as the result of the DRS or judicial proceedings (of relevant jurisdiction) a .me.uk domain name is to be transferred to a person who would not qualify under Rule 9.2 (the “transferee”), the transfer to, and continued registration by, the transferee shall be permitted provided that no use is made of that .me.uk domain name for any purpose, for so long as the transferee holds the domain name.

BTW I am not an expert.

tifosi

A quick look at the synopsis however indicates some contractual issues between the 2 parties. Although .me.uk are 'supposed' to be for personal uses, no parent in their right mind will name their child farming. So the use would be for a party with a close relationship to the generic meaning of the name.

That they've been 'given' the name but can't use it is strange, but a result with a bit of a twist. Someones got a sick sense of humour.

S

Jac

I may be wrong but I think the point texidriver was making is that www.farming.me.uk is being used which seems to contradict the "Specific Rules for the .me.uk SLD" Clauses 9.4.1 to 9.4.3 inclusive.

As I said previously, the abuse of .me.uk leaves me cold. The whole rule set was (IMHO) haphazardly written and if it is was at all practical, I'd be petitioning Nominet to close it down and start again with more precise rules... but then you would disadvantage all legitimate users too.

Catch22.

Regards
James Conaghan