legal status of UK domains

grandin · Jul 19, 2006

courts

I am sorry but courts are where trading standards should take nominet not me. Oh lets not forget the home office send emails regarding shooting gay chickens the day after i complain to government officals on the pab

Lee

bb99 · Jul 19, 2006

Jac said:
I'll be blunt

Thanks to a Mr James Blunt, "a blunt" is now cockney rhyming slang for a ... err ... well use your imagination. And it is of course American slang for a spliff. But moving on ...

JAC Blunt said:
most of the complaining about the DRS comes from a few subscribers on Acorn Domains.

Well you'd sort of expect that as this is really the only decent place for people to come and chat in detail about UK domains. Also, it would appear from other posts today that even Nominet are referring people to this forum. So I'd say it's to be expected that there's anti-DRS sentiment coming from here and it doesn't make it any less worthy than if it were coming from HMG, big business or wherever else.

And Lee - please can you publish this email about the queer chickens? I'm thinking it may be a good one to "sell" to The Sun for them to use on a slow news day. You may be able to recoup some of that £3.5k that you had to piss away to retain that domain of yours...

grandin · Jul 20, 2006

No threats

bb whilst such action sounds fun it wouldn't be right. It is unlikely to be the Home Office as a whole. The email came from a particular person, apparently sent in error, I asked him to substantiate his claim that it was sent in error...but he declined to do so.

If it was meant for me then the last line could be construed as a threat therefore I did lodge a complaint at my local police station. To be honest because nothig materialisd then clearly its not the Home Officees opinion it is one silly person who thinks its clever sending such things...I am sure such actions from a government body is a sackable offence.....maybe the guy has been sacked...the last line goes something like this......age and deceit will overcome youth and arrogance.

It was very unprofessional and it concerned me that I recieved the email exactly a day after I contacted the PAB.ie. emails ending gov.

Lee

rob · Jul 20, 2006

There are lots of edgy and crazeeeee people in offices, and have a feeling the bloke looks abit like:

Jac · Jul 20, 2006

grandin said:
I am sorry but courts are where trading standards should take nominet not me. Oh lets not forget the home office send emails regarding shooting gay chickens the day after i complain to government officals on the pab

Lee

Lee

If you feel you have a legitimate complaint against Nominet then by all means take it to Trading Standards and ask them to investigate. I have often said I'd personally be happy to see a precedent set in these issues.

I have no idea what you are on about in regards to the home office so I can't offer a comment.

Regards
James Conaghan

grandin · Jul 20, 2006

chickens dont fly

chickens dont fly...sorry I mean much

Lee

tmsdomreg · Jul 20, 2006

grandin said:
chickens dont fly...sorry I mean much

Lee

Publish Date: 6/29/2006

Blast off: Guffey Chicken Fly July 4

Charlotte Burrous
The Daily Record
It’s time for flying chickens, fiddling, food and fun during the 20th annual Guffey Chicken Fly on July 4.

The event kicks off at 10 a.m. with entertainment by Bill Daily and the Friendly Fiddlers from Cañon City before and after the first chicken fly at 10 a.m.

http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/community/community-story.asp?ID=4051

grandin · Jul 20, 2006

superfly burgers

Article reads 'An expanded menu will offer a variety of food, including polish sausages, hot links, superfly burgers, hot dogs, flat bread and beverages.'

What are superfly burgers?

Lee

Jac · Jul 20, 2006

bb99 said:
Thanks to a Mr James Blunt, "a blunt" is now cockney rhyming slang for a ... err ... well use your imagination. And it is of course American slang for a spliff. But moving on ...

No. Let's not move on. Explain to me which bit of what I said you found so offensive? Pray tell which of the following statements was so unreasonable?

That I empathised with Lee Grandin's viewpoint? That you cannot hope to resolve any conflict in a way that protects wider stakeholder interests if you don't remain open minded? That if you remain entrenched in your own standpoint you'll resolve nothing? That the nature of stakeholder interests is such that you may not personally like the decisions reached? That someone somewhere has to make these decisions? That I was blunt enough to tell the truth; that most of the complaining about the DRS comes from a few subscribers on Acorn Domains? Or that if you make the time to speak to ordinary registrants you'll find it is a small minority indeed who object to the way the DRS is run?

Or are you just being offensive because you think the truth sucks?

bb99 said:
Also, it would appear from other posts today that even Nominet are referring people to this forum.

I'd be interested in the truth if we can ever get to it. Who exactly at Nominet is supposed to have referred people to this forum? So maybe Lee will be gracious enough to tell us who.

By the by, all I have every sought is some reasonableness in the anti-DRS and anti-anything sentiment expressed by a few on this forum. Instead I see widely exaggerated opinions, some of which border on the ludicrous. If mutual consideration is too much to ask, then don't ask it of me; I'm from the do unto others as they do unto you school.

Regards
James Conaghan

grandin · Jul 20, 2006

Who

I have sent a PM to Jac giving the name of the staff member. The staff member was only doing what he is probably instructed to do.

I personally think the staff member is exceptional in many respects but the person/company who wrote the process, procedure, contract, website must be in a different league.

Lee

bb99 · Jul 20, 2006

Jac said:
No. Let's not move on. Explain to me which bit of what I said you found so offensive? Pray tell which of the following statements was so unreasonable?

James I was being silly - I apologise if my sarcasm/silly tone didn't come across in the written word and you found it offensive. It genuinely was not meant as such.

Jac · Jul 20, 2006

bb99 said:
James I was being silly - I apologise if my sarcasm/silly tone didn't come across in the written word and you found it offensive. It genuinely was not meant as such.

Thanks bb...

and thanks for clearing it up.

Regards
James Conaghan

Jac · Jul 20, 2006

Sorry to go back to this but...

grandin said:
Lets remind...Nominet recommended that I go to acorndomains.co.uk for an answer to a question because they werent prepared to re-answer a question already explained on a internet chat room

Lee

This worried me so I checked.

I am told you asked a question and Michael Penman (of Nominet) knew you were a subscriber to Acorn Domains. So he referred you to an answer already given on Acorn. For the sake of clarity, he knew you were a subscriber to this forum at the time.

This is a bit different from saying that Nominet recommended you go to Acorn Domains for an answer which implies you were not already a subscriber to the forum and that Michael had brushed you off. As far as I can see, he simply pointed you to the answer already given to the same question. Many Acorn subscribers do this when they refer to things they have already posted on the forum.

So I think the way you have stated that Nominet recommend people go to Acorn Domains is a tad misleading.

Regards
James Conaghan

olebean · Jul 20, 2006

Jac said:
Lee

This worried me so I checked.

I am told you asked a question and Michael Penman (of Nominet) knew you were a subscriber to Acorn Domains. So he referred you to an answer already given on Acorn. For the sake of clarity, he knew you were a subscriber to this forum at the time.

This is a bit different from saying that Nominet recommended you go to Acorn Domains for an answer which implies you were not already a subscriber to the forum and that Michael had brushed you off. As far as I can see, he simply pointed you to the answer already given to the same question. Many Acorn subscribers do this when they refer to things they have already posted on the forum.

So I think the way you have stated that Nominet recommend people go to Acorn Domains is a tad misleading.

Regards
James Conaghan

Jac

I dont think it is misleading

regards

OB

grandin · Jul 20, 2006

Sorry

I am sorry Michael but you have got your facts wrong. I had the utmost respect for you but I have the email. Please note my date of joining acorn:-

On the Thu 09/02/2006 10:17 you wrote:-

This is one I answered very recently on acorn - best have a look there
rather than me repeat it here.
(It's in the 'Domain Research' section, as a response to the post
'generics'.

Regards,
Mike
______________________________
Mike Penman
Mediator
Legal Dept., Nominet UK
Sandford Gate, Sandy Lane West
Oxford UK, OX4 6LB
T/F 01865 332211/332292
E [email protected]
______________________________

"Landlord Mortgages" <[email protected]> wrote on 09/02/2006
10:05:41:

> Ok Mike, therefore I will ask you a few questions over the next few days
> regarding the Policy, Procedure, Process. One of the reasons I need to
ask
> such questions is to determine whether I should cancel any of my existing
> domain names.
>
> Question 1
>
> What is the definition of a 'Generic Domain Name'(a termed referred to by
> Nominet's expert and/or experts)?
>
> Regards
> Lee Grandin

Jac · Jul 20, 2006

olebean said:
Jac

I dont think it is misleading

regards

OB

OB

I don't want to convolute this. I totally believe Lee Grandin did not mean to infer anything other than what happened, but I get concerned if things are not clear and people draw inferences like "Nominet recommends people go to Acorn Domains for answers".

As Lee just stated in his own reply; what Michael wrote was "This is one I answered very recently on acorn - best have a look there rather than me repeat it here."

Do you really think this was Michael trying to brush Lee off? All he was saying was that rather than repeat himself, could Lee take a look at his answer on Acorn. Michael already knew that Lee was a subscriber to Acorn so I doubt if 'recommending' or 'brushing off' occurred.

I am simply trying to clarify this issue because it leaves one side looking bad when I don't believe it was Michael's or Nominet's intention to fob Lee off.

Lee and I have had a PM tete-a-tete and I trust some of what I said to him in private will reassure him (at least I hope it does). It isn't my intention to cast blame in any of this, I just want us all to be fair in our inferences, unintentional as they may be.

Best wishes
James Conaghan

grandin · Jul 20, 2006

hold on

Hold on..lets get the facts right as per my email exchange with Michael from Nominet and contrary to what michael from Nominet said.

I joined Acorn in May 2006. In February 2006 (earlier that year) Michael told me to go to Acorn. Clearly Nominet made a recommendation to me to visit acorn to get an answer that he did not want to give cause he answered it on acorn previously.

Whilst I am thankful for finding acorn it is a bit unfair on the other 5 million registrants who didnt get the same recommendation.

Lee

olebean · Jul 20, 2006

grandin said:
Hold on..lets get the facts right as per my email exchange with Michael from Nominet and contrary to what michael from Nominet said.

I joined Acorn in May 2006. In February 2006 (earlier that year) Michael told me to go to Acorn. Clearly Nominet made a recommendation to me to visit acorn to get an answer that he did not want to give cause he answered it on acorn previously.

Whilst I am thankful for finding acorn it is a bit unfair on the other 5 million registrants who didnt get the same recommendation.

Lee

Watches with interest

Jac · Jul 20, 2006

grandin said:
Hold on..lets get the facts right as per my email exchange with Michael from Nominet and contrary to what michael from Nominet said.

I joined Acorn in May 2006. In February 2006 (earlier that year) Michael told me to go to Acorn. Clearly Nominet made a recommendation to me to visit acorn to get an answer that he did not want to give cause he answered it on acorn previously.

Lee

Whilst what you say is clear, it is equally clear that Michael thought you were already a member of Acorn. It makes no sense otherwise and logic dictates he would not have even mentioned Acorn if he didn't think you already belonged to this community. I just don't understand the fixation behind a suggestion that Nominet effectively told you to F.O. and sent you away without an answer. That obviously wasn't the intention no matter what spin is put on it.

Conversely, if I thought it was the intention, I'd already be on the phone to the board complaining on your behalf ... but at worst this is not Nominet fobbing off a stakeholder, it is a misunderstanding.

grandin said:
Whilst I am thankful for finding acorn it is a bit unfair on the other 5 million registrants who didnt get the same recommendation.

Lee

But the other 5 million can phone or email or write to or go up and see Nominet at any time they wish. This is simply not the big bad evil doing you seem intent on portraying it as. At worst it's a misunderstanding.

Regards
James Conaghan