cancelled in error

[keys]

"Without Prejudice

I am writing with regards to the domain name above which is currently registered to xxx.

Unfortunately we have been made aware that this domain name may have been cancelled in error on xx January 2009. We are currently investigating this matter, and will contact you again when we have established the situation. After our investigation, we may have to act to correct the error by cancelling the name and re-registering it for the original registrant.

This letter is therefore to put you on notice that this name is under investigation and that, while this is occurring, we will not accept any transfer requests in respect of the name. We would also suggest that you do not enter into any arrangement to sell the name to a third party, as we may have to withdraw the name.

We apologise for this situation."

Who would be liable to deal with the buyer if the domain had been sold, and then reclaimed by Nominet? On two previous occasions domains were taken back with a few days notice, this time we are being informed of an investigation.

 

[woopwoop]

Are the people who have sent you this pretending to be Nominet or implying it?
This is actually very funny, if I'm imagining the situation correctly. It's funny how they apologise for it, and tell you not to sell it or transfer it... You should reply back telling them that a sale is in progress and the domain will be with someone else shortly.

 

[aZooZa]

The "without prejudice" gives it away. Nominet wouldn't write that in an initial notice. Also, mixed singular and plural proper nouns, "I" and "we" etc.

 

[Nigel]

It might be genuine because this happened to us once although I can't recall the wording of the letter

We lost two nice domains some years ago which were 'cancelled in error' - Apologies from Nominet but nothing else. The original registrant let them lapse again a couple of years later and they were caught by two different dropcatchers.

Do other registries make these errors? I've never heard of .coms being clawed back from new registrants because they were released in error.

 

[afx]

Just give Nominet a call to make sure it's genuine. This does happen and they get given back to their original owner if Nominet havn't followed their own process.

 

[grantw]

This happened to me a couple of weeks ago, my initial email from Nom. didn't have the 'without prejudice' on it though but the rest of the text was identical.

They took the domains back and offered me a refund or alternative registration 'as a gesture of good will' LOL

Grant

 

[retired_member9]

yeah, happened to me as well

Nominet has taken domain stranger.co.uk from me exactly this way.

After a several months long investigation, they apologized and informed me that it was discovered Nominet has cancelled the domain name due to 'human error', when it was in fact renewed by previous registrant.

So I had to rely entirely on Nominet's word in this case.

 

[GreyWing]

Would this include human error at the ISP or human error with regards staff in Nominet because I always thought Nom's systems were automated.

However if this is at an ISP level, then everyone that lets a domain drop and reads about how much it was sold on for later, can claim to have renewed and the ISP let it drop.

Very Strange....

 

[retired_member9]

Human error @ Nominet

 

[Jordan]

Happened to me about 2 weeks ago too - domain was in DRS and they let it drop.

 

[retired_member11]

Happened to me too in the past. The name dropped and I caught it. Nominet send a similar email and restored the old registration. A couple of days later it dropped again...and I caught it again...and Nominet took it away again.

Nominet is a contractual dictatorship. Live with it and move on.

 

[Skinner]

The addition of without prejudice interests me muchly. It seems they are trying to limit their loses or potential or hiding something. Could this protect them against liability if it was sold ?

I recall in a few DRS nominet ruled that the without prejudice legal stance has no place in the domains process, so have they decided its ok now it works for them?

 

[rob]

I had suggested that the DRS has a cut off point for previous registrants, any suggestions on a policy that would perhaps have a cut off point for such actions?

 

[crabfoot]

The "Without Prejudice" heading is to say that they are writing for informational purposes - it is not an admission of liability. In other words, whatever follows "Without Prejudice" is not definitive, and you can't use it in a Civil Court if you sue them.

 

[devolution]

Here's an interesting brief on all things Without Prejudice, Legally Privileged etc.:
Privileged, Without Prejudice, and Without Prejudice Save As to Costs documents. - Alway Associates

 

[philiporchard]

If it was a DRS, hiding info behind 'without prejudice', makes no difference to whether an expert would see it or not. From Nominet's site:

All other documents, whether or not they are "Without Prejudice" documents, can be sent to the expert. The expert can choose to ignore this material if it is in the interests of justice to do so, but this is the expert's choice.

 

[retired_member12]

I it was a DRS, hiding info behind 'without prejudice', makes no difference to whether an expert would see it or not. From Nominet's site:

All other documents, whether or not they are "Without Prejudice" documents, can be sent to the expert. The expert can choose to ignore this material if it is in the interests of justice to do so, but this is the expert's choice.

The problem with that statement from their site is that it is adopting a stance which does not exist. The DRS is not a judicial process, and in fact there is no assurance that the DRS 'expert' is even a lawyer, let alone them being able to make decisions 'in the interest of justice'. This also touches on the real problem with the DRS, it is not independant as it is administered by Nominet. At best the expert is independant, but the expert cannot guarantee that it is in receipt of all the documents anyway, as these are handled by Nominet first, not the expert directly. Read what the first sentence actually implies, a statement like 'can be sent' rather than 'will be sent' is being applied to any document. How worrying is that? Nominet are always in a position to decide what the Expert has access to, and you have no ability to verify that either.

A company that can correct possible mistakes in an arbitrary fashion should be accountable for those mistakes, else how do you know this is the only aspect of their business that makes mistakes? You don't!

None of this would happen if domain names were recognised as property of course, i suspect there would be sufficient double checking put in place across the whole industry within weeks if that were so.

 

[Skinner]

I wonder if you can claim for damages and losses if you had already sold said domain, used a drop catcher where it cost you up to 70, any they will only refund you reg fee. Since it was clearly their error but the without prejudice may cause issues with a claims procedure.

Stands to reason that if you reg thru godaddy it costs like 25 or whatever, 123 is 6, so if they refund what you paid would that make them liable for 3rd party costs like a sale or would they try to say 6quid recover the rest from your registrar which is wrong as its not the registrars fault.

 

[retired_member11]

The problem with that statement from their site is that it is adopting a stance which does not exist. The DRS is not a judicial process, and in fact there is no assurance that the DRS 'expert' is even a lawyer, let alone them being able to make decisions 'in the interest of justice'. This also touches on the real problem with the DRS, it is not independant as it is administered by Nominet. At best the expert is independant, but the expert cannot guarantee that it is in receipt of all the documents anyway, as these are handled by Nominet first, not the expert directly. Read what the first sentence actually implies, a statement like 'can be sent' rather than 'will be sent' is being applied to any document. How worrying is that? Nominet are always in a position to decide what the Expert has access to, and you have no ability to verify that either.

A company that can correct possible mistakes in an arbitrary fashion should be accountable for those mistakes, else how do you know this is the only aspect of their business that makes mistakes? You don't!

None of this would happen if domain names were recognised as property of course, i suspect there would be sufficient double checking put in place across the whole industry within weeks if that were so.

Well, just make contact with the Expert after the Decision to clarify what documents were passed on by Nominet. In the interests of justice the Expert would probably complain to Nominet if a document potentially pivotal to the Decision had not been passed on.

 

[retired_member12]

Well, just make contact with the Expert after the Decision to clarify what documents were passed on by Nominet. In the interests of justice the Expert would probably complain to Nominet if a document potentially pivotal to the Decision had not been passed on.

There is no point trying to contact the 'expert' after the decision, as the agrieved party would then need to go to DRS appeal to further the matter, and Nominet's DRS fails to provide scope for the 'expert' to reply to such an enquiry, or consider what further weight the omissions might have had on his/her decision.
Nominet are not even compelled to duplicate copies of what has been forwarded, or provide a simple list of them. They don't even need to give reasons for their decisions as to what they have or have not passed on.

The last time I looked, their web site said that the DRS is a transparent method of resolving disputes. Hardly transparent when the parties involved haven't the foggiest idea what the 'expert' sees!

This wouldn't even be a talking point in a judicial process!

I do wish they would drop the label 'expert' too, which is something Nominet appears to promote, and have decided is appropriate to their appointment. A DRS Adjudicator is much more in line with the accepted norm.