Question for Nominet

[Jac]

Under the Directive, should the distinction not be between "natural persons" and others - rather than between "consumers" and others?

Beasty

If that question is to me, I have to say what I said to olebean.

It is not my directive. It is the EU's.

So, the quick answer is: I don't know. :???:

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Surely a business (as in Ltd or such) being a separate legal entity that has pretty much the same rights/laws as an individual is a consumer in its own right?

Er... no.

There are many laws (eg: Sale of Goods Act 1979) which protect consumers but not businesses; at least, not to the same degree.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

There's little doubt that, because domainers sometimes like to bring one another's registrations to our attention, you being on here might mean we notice (are told about) more of your opt-outs.

I am glad Michael Penman from Nominet pointed out what some of you seem to have overlooked. That it can quite easily be your fellow domainers who take exception to what they perceive as injustices and raise a complaint with Nominet. So, the lesson here may be, don't boast about your conquests if you don't want to provoke human nature... not everybody will see everything as you do.

I think it is now fair to point out that all the objections I saw on this board yesterday to the FL.co.uk transfer were unfounded. The registrant who applied for this transfer provided proof (as per the policy here) that he was entitled to the domain name. Nominet acted in good faith and in line with its policy in this instance, so all the accusations that were flying around were without merit.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Beasty]

Beasty

If that question is to me, I have to say what I said to olebean.

It is not my directive. It is the EU's.

So, the quick answer is: I don't know. :???:

Regards
James Conaghan

The question was more for Nominet. Nominet's T&Cs distinguish between "consumers" and essentially business users - who may be a company or a partnership or an individual trader. From a quick glance at the Directive, it seems to distinguish between "natural persons" and the rest. Now a sole trader is a "natural person" but is not a "consumer" - so the question really was whether there was a mis-application of the Directive in Nominet's T&Cs?

 

[olebean]

Beasty

The question also remains as to whether an individual can be both...

In terms of individuals and use of data

information about a living individual who can be identified

 

[Jac]

The question was more for Nominet. Nominet's T&Cs distinguish between "consumers" and essentially business users - who may be a company or a partnership or an individual trader. From a quick glance at the Directive, it seems to distinguish between "natural persons" and the rest. Now a sole trader is a "natural person" but is not a "consumer" - so the question really was whether there was a mis-application of the Directive in Nominet's T&Cs?

I would suggest next Thursday, 22nd June, would be an opportune moment to raise this one Beasty?

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[netserve]

In terms of the whois, only individuals who are non-trading entities have a right to opt out.

So Nominet is so clever that it can make that decision by looking at a single web page without consulting anyone?

The EU and the Inland Revenue have pages and pages of tests and rules on what is trading and non trading. Nominet are clever enough to make the decision in seconds with no proper information and put confidential information in the public domain. They don't not even have the courtesy to give a registrant time to check or amend the details.

There's not even a note in the email that's sent out that explains what to do if Nominet has made a mistake or how to appeal against the decision.

 

[domaingenius]

Michael

Thanks and noted. In fact the lady at Nominet was professional and merely doing her job so im not at blaming her. Quite simply I all I am saying is that registrants who clearly want to opt out, who may have made a mistake etc etc should be give a good few days to make changes to bring themselves into line or face the consequence .Thats it really and matter is done and dusted now.

Regards

DG

John,

We (usually the team in Registrant Services, but sometimes in the Legal Depatment) will opt in domain names which aren't eligable to be opted out. We do this whenever we notice such names, without any favour or prejudice, because it's our job to ensure everyone works by our Ts & Cs wherever we can.

If someone asks us for contact details for a registrant who shouldn't be opted out, then we opt them in, allowing the requestor to see the details (as they should be able to anyway) rather than wasting time sending the details to them.

If we opt in a registration then if time allows we'll check similar registrations to see if we can sort a load at the same time.

As I say, here in legal we do all this if we happen to notice and if we have time. There's little doubt that, because domainers sometimes like to bring one another's registrations to our attention, you being on here might mean we notice (are told about) more of your opt-outs.

If you'd like to know more about your particular domains and why they were opted in, please give me a call.

 

[Jac]

As a point of interest...

The question was more for Nominet. Nominet's T&Cs distinguish between "consumers" and essentially business users - who may be a company or a partnership or an individual trader. From a quick glance at the Directive, it seems to distinguish between "natural persons" and the rest. Now a sole trader is a "natural person" but is not a "consumer" - so the question really was whether there was a mis-application of the Directive in Nominet's T&Cs?

From a whois perspective the GNSO (basically ICANN) has recently completed a policy study and recommendation on the whois and what should be shown which controversially, contradicts what the U.S. government wanted. They wanted all information on the gTLD whois system to stay as is.

GNSO/ICANN now say: "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver."

Not actually sure what that means in terms of what will and won't be shown in respect of individual registrations - not business ones - but the U.S. Government isn't happy! Some observers expect them to pull a .xxx on ICANN but it's not like they could say that it's a vote against porn (as they did in recinding .xxx). This one is about user rights and privacy and currently ICANN’s method of collecting and publishing the contact information of all domain name registrants blatantly violates international norms and laws regarding data protection. In fact, I think it's fair to say it violates even national law in the States. (Only in America!)

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

As a point of interest...

The question was more for Nominet. Nominet's T&Cs distinguish between "consumers" and essentially business users - who may be a company or a partnership or an individual trader. From a quick glance at the Directive, it seems to distinguish between "natural persons" and the rest. Now a sole trader is a "natural person" but is not a "consumer" - so the question really was whether there was a mis-application of the Directive in Nominet's T&Cs?

From a whois perspective the GNSO (basically ICANN) has recently completed a policy study and recommendation on the whois and what should be shown which controversially, contradicts what the U.S. government wanted. They wanted all information on the gTLD whois system to stay as is.

GNSO/ICANN now say: "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver."

Not actually sure what that means in terms of what will and won't be shown in respect of individual registrations - not business ones - but the U.S. Government isn't happy! Some observers expect them to pull a .xxx on ICANN but it's not like they could say that it's a vote against porn; as they did in recinding .xxx. This one is about user rights and privacy and currently ICANN’s method of collecting and publishing the contact information of all domain name registrants blatantly violates international norms and laws regarding data protection. In fact, I think it's fair to say it violates even national law in the States. (Only in America!)

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

So Nominet is so clever that it can make that decision by looking at a single web page without consulting anyone?

If a single webpage alludes to internet services et al, I'd say anyone might be inclined to think commerical for-profit activity ... but if a single webpage alludes to charitable pursuits or personal blogs (for instance) then I think the distinction is reasonably clear. It's got nothing to do with anyone trying to be clever... it's to do with following the policies that are in place because the registry has to be seen to apply its rules and regulations equally (in a non-discriminate manner) to each and every stakeholder. Otherwise, some other stakeholder, or stakeholder group, will complain in an equally robust and opposite standpoint from yours.

However, as I wrote earlier today, I will take up this point with the PAB and Nominet and hopefully we can amend the policy to give the registrant time to either object or comply.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[netserve]

If a single webpage alludes to internet services et al, I'd say anyone might be inclined to think commerical for-profit activity ... but if a single webpage alludes to charitable pursuits or personal blogs (for instance) then I think the distinction is reasonably clear.

If the distinction was reasonably clear in every case no one would complain. As the distinction is not clear and there's an element of risk involved Nominet should not take such a cavalier broad brush approach.

 

[domaingenius]

I would refer to the quote earlier of JAC;
"Whatever data is collected should be relevant and not excessive for the specific purpose. The registration of domain names by individuals raises different legal considerations than that of companies or other legal entities registering domain names."

"Individuals should have the right to determine whether their personal data are included in a public directory. An individual’s identity and contact information should be known to the individual’s service provider."

"Any use of e-mail addresses for direct marketing must be based on opt-in only."

The point that sticks out to me is,quote "The registration of domain names by individuals raises different legal considerations than that of companies or other legal entities registering domains names".

Let me say this;
(1) I would suggest that they may/could be referring to the fact that Limited
companies have to have their registered office address detailed and so it
makes no difference to them.
(2) On the other hand the UK long ago did away with registration of business
names and therefore in fact a person who is "trading as" does not
need to even put his name on an letterheads etc (there is some case
law on this I will dig out).
(3) Has Nominet ever stopped to actually think "why" they actually are
needing to put addresses on the whois ?. What actually is the purpose ?
(4) The quote above does NOT say that individuals should not have their
addresses shown and Companies should .
(5) I think the crux is the question "is there a difference between an
individual and an individual believed to be trading and when does that
difference actually occur .ie. when he is proved to be trading or merely
appears to be " ?.

DG

 

[olebean]

If the distinction was reasonably clear in every case no one would complain. As the distinction is not clear and there's an element of risk involved Nominet should not take such a cavalier broad brush approach.

Wholeheartly agree! Prudence is a wonderful word!

Either that or it could be constued they take an arrogant view that non-compliance will not be challenged..

 

[olebean]

I would refer to the quote earlier of JAC;
"Whatever data is collected should be relevant and not excessive for the specific purpose. The registration of domain names by individuals raises different legal considerations than that of companies or other legal entities registering domain names."

"Individuals should have the right to determine whether their personal data are included in a public directory. An individual’s identity and contact information should be known to the individual’s service provider."

"Any use of e-mail addresses for direct marketing must be based on opt-in only."

The point that sticks out to me is,quote "The registration of domain names by individuals raises different legal considerations than that of companies or other legal entities registering domains names".

Let me say this;
(1) I would suggest that they may/could be referring to the fact that Limited
companies have to have their registered office address detailed and so it
makes no difference to them.
(2) On the other hand the UK long ago did away with registration of business
names and therefore in fact a person who is "trading as" does not
need to even put his name on an letterheads etc (there is some case
law on this I will dig out).
(3) Has Nominet ever stopped to actually think "why" they actually are
needing to put addresses on the whois ?. What actually is the purpose ?
(4) The quote above does NOT say that individuals should not have their
addresses shown and Companies should .
(5) I think the crux is the question "is there a difference between an
individual and an individual believed to be trading and when does that
difference actually occur .ie. when he is proved to be trading or merely
appears to be " ?.

DG

Further to that, even if an individual is trading at some point some data on the individual passes as personal...

 

[retired_member16]

I know of a certain party on this website who has 30+ trademark domains all with

a) a fictitious registration name
b) an address that does exist.

If Nominet want to show their details on a whois then no harm is done. If they ever want to sell, well you just fill out the nonsense details on their nonsense transfer form (that, in case you were asleep at the back, they send to anyone, anywhere)

Domains transferred and no nutters/lawyers trying to batter your door down.

 

[Jac]

I know of a certain party on this website who has 30+ trademark domains all with

a) a fictitious registration name
b) an address that does exist.

It astounds the hell out of me that you can boast about this kind of shennanigans on a public forum. If I was you (or him) I'd be inclined to keep schtum about infringements of domain name rules that apply to every other body who might just see this kind of infringement as unfair.

If Nominet want to show their details on a whois then no harm is done. If they ever want to sell, well you just fill out the nonsense details on their nonsense transfer form (that, in case you were asleep at the back, they send to anyone, anywhere)

They do not send to anyone, anywhere. They send to the registrant address of record. If you are going to make wild and exaggerated claims can you at least have the good grace to get the facts right.

As an aside, your own transfer forms were sent to your address. You were the one who sent them on the the receiving party who signed your name.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

If the distinction was reasonably clear in every case no one would complain. As the distinction is not clear and there's an element of risk involved Nominet should not take such a cavalier broad brush approach.

So... let me get this clear... are you saying that if a domain name points at a website offering items for sale and the registrant is opted out, that the registrant should not be opted back in again?

By the by, accusing Nominet of taking a cavalier broad brush to all opt out/opt in complaints, is akin to saying everybody on this forum sticks to the rules; they are both preposterous suggestions... and the irony is, you've got domainers complaining about domainers... which is why I suggested to firestars he keeps schtum about bogus registrant names.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[aqls]

They do not send to anyone, anywhere. They send to the registrant address of record.

Regards
James Conaghan

This is just not the case.

-aqls-

 

[Jac]

Bollocks

-aqls-

If you can point me to a case where Nominet sent out transfer forms to another address other than the one of record, I will personally go to Nominet and insist the person who did it is sacked.

They are not supposed to do it, I have been assured they don't, so give me proof of "bollocks" and I'll make damned sure it doesn't happen again. But if you have no proof, show some integrity and stop making unsubstantiated comments.

It seems everybody and his dog thinks they have a right, but some of you don't even show a responsibility to your own registrations. You want the right to say bollocks? Earn it! It comes with a responsibility price tag!

Regards
James Conaghan