Update on Fasthosts/Nominet domain transfers

[DomainAngel]

Fasthosts along with lots of other registrars exercised the rights of the .uk for their co.uk registrants. When the 5 year period ran out shortly after, the registrant had no right to the .uk, the registrant of the co.uk in many cases did nothing to take control during this grace period following the ror deadline by the extension, they also made no payment and made no agreement with fasthosts for the .uk and no agreement with nominets terms, so in fact they were not the legal registrant at all, merely the name added to these fields to be held with nominet.

So how can fasthosts and others give back the domains to a not legal, legal registrant?

 

[Ben Thomas]

Fasthosts along with lots of other registrars exercised the rights of the .uk for their co.uk registrants. When the 5 year period ran out shortly after, the registrant had no right to the .uk, the registrant of the co.uk in many cases did nothing to take control during this grace period following the ror deadline by the extension, they also made no payment and made no agreement with fasthosts for the .uk and no agreement with nominets terms, so in fact they were not the legal registrant at all, merely the name added to these fields to be held with nominet.

So how can fasthosts and others give back the domains to a not legal, legal registrant?

Suppose you do make a valid point.

 

[armistice]

Fasthosts along with lots of other registrars exercised the rights of the .uk for their co.uk registrants. When the 5 year period ran out shortly after, the registrant had no right to the .uk, the registrant of the co.uk in many cases did nothing to take control during this grace period following the ror deadline by the extension, they also made no payment and made no agreement with fasthosts for the .uk and no agreement with nominets terms, so in fact they were not the legal registrant at all, merely the name added to these fields to be held with nominet.

So how can fasthosts and others give back the domains to a not legal, legal registrant?

That is completely wrong because the .uk was registered to the .co.uk owner during the ROR period. The only legal registrant of the domain at the time fasthosts registered them was the rights holder (in most cases the .co.uk owner).

 

[DomainAngel]

That is completely wrong because the .uk was registered to the .co.uk owner during the ROR period. The only legal registrant of the domain at the time fasthosts registered them was the rights holder (in most cases the .co.uk owner).

Registered without their consent, so technically they have not entered into any agreement with fasthosts or nominet as required for every domain registration.

 

[anthony]

Registered without their consent, so technically they have not entered into any agreement with fasthosts or nominet as required for every domain registration.

You are right on this, as there was no 'consideration' involved. Unless those people handed over any money, then no contractual right exists. That's a pretty well understood part of contract law.

 

[signature]

Registered without their consent, so technically they have not entered into any agreement with fasthosts or Nominet as required for every domain registration.

They have entered into a contract with Nominet even if they have no knowledge of it. The only entity with legal interest to the .uk domain name apart from Nominet during the ROR is the current .co.uk owner or which ever is in the extension is entitled to it.

When Registrar like Fasthost create the .uk for the .co.uk registrant, they have entered them into a legal agreement with Nominet and partially with agreement with Fasthost for facilitating the registration.

Even when the registrant have no knowledge of the names were registered on their behalf, even if they don't want the names, they are the legal registrant.

 

[signature]

Unless those people handed over any money, then no contractual right exists.

Its free registration, that's why Fasthost were able to mass registered all those domain names.

You don't have to pay for domain to enter contract with Nominet as the domain owner.

A domain name registration contract is between Registrar, Registry and Registrant. The only part of the contract that involve the Fasthost is the facilitating of the domain registration, the main contract is infact between Nominet and the registrant. A registrant can move their domain away from any registrar without their consent. We don't operate a lock like other registry/registrar does.

 

[domainseller200]

They have entered into a contract with Nominet even if they have no knowledge of it.

Even when the registrant have no knowledge of the names were registered on their behalf, even if they don't want the names, they are the legal registrant.

Here’s a thought.

Say someone built an “illegal” website on one of these said names, what then? Are they legally liable for the consequences, even though they didn’t know about it? Are Fasthosts? Who is?

Surely that can’t be correct, because if it was, it would be easy to register a domain to Joe Bloggs without their knowledge and no digital trail, set up a scam website, make money and then disappear, whilst leaving Joe Bloggs liable for the mess as they were the “legal registrant” ?

 

[DomainAngel]

They have entered into a contract with Nominet even if they have no knowledge of it. The only entity with legal interest to the .uk domain name apart from Nominet during the ROR is the current .co.uk owner or which ever is in the extension is entitled to it.

When Registrar like Fasthost create the .uk for the .co.uk registrant, they have entered them into a legal agreement with Nominet and partially with agreement with Fasthost for facilitating the registration.

Even when the registrant have no knowledge of the names were registered on their behalf, even if they don't want the names, they are the legal registrant.

Not in England & Wales you can't unless acting as an authorised agent which was not the case here.

 

[signature]

Surely that can’t be correct, because if it was, it would be easy to register a domain to Joe Bloggs without their knowledge and no digital trail, set up a scam website, make money and then disappear, whilst leaving Joe Bloggs liable for the mess as they were the “legal registrant” ?

Yes, I can register a domain name build a website on your name and do fraudulent activities with it and the authority will come for you. You will need to prove its not you who register and create the scam.

The trail of how the payment was made, IP addresses, etc will confirm its not you but you will be questioned in the first place. You will have a bigger problem if I have your identity docs and payment information.

Fasthost have no legal rights to register the domain names on the registrants behalf without their knowledge, I am still baffled how Nominet allowed it, because for every .UK names there is a contract between the registrant and Nominet. This is not an interpretation, this is the fact.

 

[signature]

Not in England & Wales you can't unless acting as an authourised agent which was not the case here.

If you meant they cant enter into a legal agreement on behalf of the registrant, yes they cant but they did. The same Nominet terms for registering the domain names applies and this is why I don't understand why Nominet allow it to happen in the first place.

 

[DomainAngel]

To anyone who can be bothered looking at all the threads and understands the facts, there is nothing more to say on this matter now.

However one thing I would like to do is to apologise to @susannah , having seen the charlie posts and knowing about the fasthosts and other registrar so called loopholes, I added two and two together without having any proof at all and suspected she may have done the same, if this led to any idiots being horrible i apologise.

It was not my place to do so, yes we all should callout practices we see and want looking in to, but we shouldn't let things get too personal at least until all facts are public and even then proportionate to the act, yes she was standing for NED which did propel my own interest in this and I would have liked an explanation myself, but business is business and we had no right to the information.

I guess I just jumped to conclusions and it was her prior honesty and kindness that made this look so bad, when in reality they were baseless with no facts other than the loopholes available and speculation, its maybe the case she has been the victim of buying one of these domains from a third party and she had no clue about the loophole as I had not published it at that time.

I can deal with my problem acorners down the legal route, but what is the victim of abuse and bullying to do? There is no place for it in society and unless you have walked in someone else's shoes, you can never know what harm it does. I see her silence as a strength now, as I have been posting like crazy trying to change people minds when they didn't have a mind to change and it only causes pain, if someone has decided that's that no matter what the facts are, its like talking to a brick wall.

Yes NED, her statement has been made, you have all dealt with her in the past and been more than happy, make your vote according to that, if it turns out that things were amiss and you've voted for someone who didn't deserve to be there, then there will be no change as that's pretty much after most NED elections

 

[LCHappy]

I can deal with my problem acorners down the legal route

Fair enough, reporting this to the cops on Monday. Got friends who will push this along the right channels. Will also put Nominet on notice on Monday that there is to be a criminal complaint against an accredited member that they have so far ignored. Let's see if they reconsider your membership status.

You are in a big glass house and for some reason seem intent on throwing stones.

Best of luck

 

[DomainAngel]

Fair enough, reporting this to the cops on Monday. Got friends who will push this along the right channels. Will also put Nominet on notice on Monday that there is to be a criminal complaint against an accredited member that they have so far ignored. Let's see if they reconsider your membership status.

You are in a big glass house and for some reason seem intent on throwing stones.

Best of luck

When you say you have fiends who will push this along the right channels, what do you mean?

 

[DJ]

@DomainAngel , I am not sure if this has been covered in this thread or the other one (I didn't see it, so sorry if it was,) how did you discover the loophole? No problem if you can't disclose, I was just wondering if you were tipped of or discovered it yourself?

 

[Ben Thomas]

It’s a fucking shambles. That’s all. There’s no bullying. As I mentioned, it’s a shame she is the one in the limelight as plenty of other people dipped their hands into the pot too.

 

[starbird]

quest.uk looks to have renewed but it shouldn't because it was past it's drop date. I can't see any more info such as if same registrant etc but that one should have dropped. Still on fasthosts holding servers. Doesn't matter if original registrant they would have missed their chance had this carry on not happened so it should drop not be allowed to be renewed.

 

[super-whois]

plenty of other people dipped their hands into the pot too.

Wasn't Charlie first to dip their hand?

 

[Murray]

Registered without their consent, so technically they have not entered into any agreement with fasthosts or nominet as required for every domain registration.

Lets clear something up very quickly and easily

FACT

The registrants did not own the domains as you all know no one can own a domain, however they were the legal registrant who had let the domain go past expiry, the email address on file was emailed by nominet several times and it would have been the email of the co.uk owner and not a fasthosts one, including 7 days before deletion as the domains were not marked no longer required..

You admit in your first post you believe they're the legal registrant? now your angle switches to something different, interesting

.co.uk registrants had until 25th June 2019 to register their corresponding .uk and the .uk could only be registered to .co.uk registrant

The .uk domains were registered on 11/12th

Do you know for a fact any .uks registered on that date weren't claimed by the registrant themselves?

If fasthosts registered .uk domains to the .co.uk registrant without their consent that is a matter for the registrant, registrar and registry to sort out

At no stage did fasthosts gain any rights to these domains or any right to transfer them to a third party.. but sorry I'm stating the obvious, you're a registrar who signed a registrar agreement so you know all too well.

 

[DJ]

I know I may be a little bias here as I have had past dealings with Ant @DomainAngel (although I do not know him personally) and from those dealings I have always found him to be honest, helpful and generally a really nice guy.

I was wondering, would we have actually known about this loophole if he didn't reveal it? I agree that probably registering 10 was a bit too far and I am sure he regrets this in hindsight. But, if it wasn't for him, would we really know what was going on, would there be a second chance to catch these domains?

I think he deserves a little credit for this and for standing up and openly saying he done it. Anyone of us could have done it after it was revealed, I know a was tempted to try and do it with soph.uk as I wanted it for my daughter, but in the end I didn't as it didn't feel right after reading the comments from the likes of @Murray . If I had discovered this myself and no one knew about it already, maybe I would have come to a different conclusion and though f*** it, it's worth the risk.

I am in no way saying he deserves a pat on the back but maybe we are attacking the messenger a bit too much here.

Have a great weekend all, it might be the last one before we are allowed out again.