oyster

essexboy · 03-03-2010, 09:15:53 AM

I believe what he is saying is it breaks nominets collaboration rule. He is benefitting from his users catching a name as he gets half the money from sales.

dragon · 03-03-2010, 09:25:13 AM

Denys, why post on your blog that I edited my comments to make them seem rhetorical and not directed at you, when I have done no such thing?

I'm no coward boyo and I'm only too happy to have a chat in person with you over a nice cup of English tea and biscuits. You know my number and home address please drop by.

aZooZa · 03-03-2010, 10:22:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by essexboy

I believe what he is saying is it breaks nominets collaboration rule. He is benefitting from his users catching a name as he gets half the money from sales.

That's not the issue. The problem is where a provider invites participants to try and catch the same name(s).

tifosi · 03-03-2010, 10:37:24 AM

An important point is 'asserting rights to a domain'. If Denys insists that he has a right to any domain caught by his clients then that is not allowed.

Why should he be allowed to 'set' the price at a point where - to paraphrase - 'he could afford it'?

It might be semantic, but it's an important point. If the agreement is to profit from 50% of the sale proceeds then fine - I still think it's sailing v. close to the wind as far as breaking both the spirit of the law and the actual law. But if he asserts that he both has rights to 50% of the proceeds AND a right to how that domain is disposed of then that is membership collaboration & breaking the DAC/EPP T&C.

The term 'lease' in this agreement is not the definition of lease I've ever seen. More a 'borrowing with full control'. If I lease a house, the owner has NO right of entry without my permission. Same with just about anything else that is leased. If the lease agreement is broke then the lease equipment is returned, not what I've been doing with it during the lease term.

I for one am finding the thread 'enlightening'.

retired_member12 · 03-03-2010, 10:49:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aZooZa

That's not the issue. The problem is where a provider invites participants to try and catch the same name(s).

So, if you took an example like autopilot .co.uk, which vizzy caught for himself this morning, then if his system was trying to catch that too for another member(s), then that may breach the rules?

aZooZa · 03-03-2010, 10:56:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleTap

So, if you took an example like autopilot .co.uk, which vizzy caught for himself this morning, then if his system was trying to catch that too for another member(s), then that may breach the rules?

Not unless participants are *invited* to participate in catching the *same* names to the financial advantage of the provider.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-03-2010, 09:15:53 AM	#71 (permalink)
essexboy Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 226 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (0% / 0)	I believe what he is saying is it breaks nominets collaboration rule. He is benefitting from his users catching a name as he gets half the money from sales.

03-03-2010, 09:25:13 AM	#72 (permalink)
dragon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Southampton Posts: 574 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 33)	Denys, why post on your blog that I edited my comments to make them seem rhetorical and not directed at you, when I have done no such thing? I'm no coward boyo and I'm only too happy to have a chat in person with you over a nice cup of English tea and biscuits. You know my number and home address please drop by.

03-03-2010, 10:37:24 AM	#74 (permalink)
tifosi Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Lancashire Posts: 1,907 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 9)	An important point is 'asserting rights to a domain'. If Denys insists that he has a right to any domain caught by his clients then that is not allowed. Why should he be allowed to 'set' the price at a point where - to paraphrase - 'he could afford it'? It might be semantic, but it's an important point. If the agreement is to profit from 50% of the sale proceeds then fine - I still think it's sailing v. close to the wind as far as breaking both the spirit of the law and the actual law. But if he asserts that he both has rights to 50% of the proceeds AND a right to how that domain is disposed of then that is membership collaboration & breaking the DAC/EPP T&C. The term 'lease' in this agreement is not the definition of lease I've ever seen. More a 'borrowing with full control'. If I lease a house, the owner has NO right of entry without my permission. Same with just about anything else that is leased. If the lease agreement is broke then the lease equipment is returned, not what I've been doing with it during the lease term. I for one am finding the thread 'enlightening'.