Membership is FREE – with unlimited access to all features, tools, and discussions. Premium accounts get benefits like banner ads and newsletter exposure. ✅ Signature links are now free for all. 🚫 No AI-generated (LLM) posts allowed. Share your own thoughts and experience — accounts may be terminated for violations.
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 349
- Reaction score
- 26
I'm not sure how you've made that conceptual leap. We started off by discussing the concept of renewals, which I think I've clearly established the necessity for.
However that is different from why domains weren't made to work the same as property. The actual reason is at that time (and now) the vast majority of those involved wanted them to be a renewable service. The people who want them to be unrenewable property are few and far between.
As to cross-charging, you are still missing the point of my previous posts. Domains are supplied in order for you to run them in DNS, which is what the overwhelming majority of them are used for. If some people choose not to use them in DNS then that is their choice, but this is not about cross-charging.
Missed Point
Sorry Jay,
Surely now after 5 million registrations (and many more world wide) the general view of the stakeholders is that registrants should become rightful owners of the property indefinately?
The way you cost up the services that you need to provide would have to be changed....is that not possible given you have a track record on things like change of address, change of ownership, new registration rates?
Lee
Sorry Jay,
Surely now after 5 million registrations (and many more world wide) the general view of the stakeholders is that registrants should become rightful owners of the property indefinately?
The way you cost up the services that you need to provide would have to be changed....is that not possible given you have a track record on things like change of address, change of ownership, new registration rates?
Lee
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Posts
- 549
- Reaction score
- 15
...I can 'maybe' (and at a streach) understand that it's possible that 'back in the day' those involved wanted it to be a "renewable service" - but to say that for now - I think is streaching it a bit too far! - I'd suggest asking your 5 million or so domain holders.
...Again if you were to do a survey of all .uk domain 'owners' - I think you might just get a supprise.
Why - a) because most of them think a domain is their 'property'. and; b) well - if you had the choice of not having to pay renewal fees - what would you do? :mrgreen:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 349
- Reaction score
- 26
Oh dear. This reminds me of a news story from the 1980's about three hecklers who would pick on the unsuspecting who stood up at speakers' corner in Hyde Park to espouse their views. Each of the three would heckle at a different intellectual level - so one would say "isn't that part of the Bible proven to be false by the neo-platonic arguements of Benedictines?", another would say "so what's in it for me, will it pay the mortgage?" whilst the other would say "Oi baldy, get a life".
Anyway, I will try to answer as best I can.
First, if you ask anyone, "do you want service X completely for free no matter how much it costs someone else to provide it" then yes almost everyone is going to say yes. But at the same time they almost all know it is impossible and probably a dumb question to ask.
Anyway, to the serious point of why not change the charging; I've explained that clearly - the service being provided has a significant ongoing cost associated with it hence the renewals. For those that want to sit on the domain and not use it then that is their problem because that is not how domains were intended to be used.
Yes the vast majority do want domains to be renewed. In fact until I had spoken to a couple of people here I didn't even know that some of you want to be able to own your domain for ever without having to pay anything (until you choose an interaction).
Let's not forget how many people on this forum make a living by picking up names that others have let drop.
But let's face it, whilst I acknowledge that we could devise a system that worked differently, that ain't gonna happen. This is the way things are and they are not going to change. So why keep pushing for the impossible?
Anyway, I will try to answer as best I can.
First, if you ask anyone, "do you want service X completely for free no matter how much it costs someone else to provide it" then yes almost everyone is going to say yes. But at the same time they almost all know it is impossible and probably a dumb question to ask.
Anyway, to the serious point of why not change the charging; I've explained that clearly - the service being provided has a significant ongoing cost associated with it hence the renewals. For those that want to sit on the domain and not use it then that is their problem because that is not how domains were intended to be used.
Yes the vast majority do want domains to be renewed. In fact until I had spoken to a couple of people here I didn't even know that some of you want to be able to own your domain for ever without having to pay anything (until you choose an interaction).
Let's not forget how many people on this forum make a living by picking up names that others have let drop.
But let's face it, whilst I acknowledge that we could devise a system that worked differently, that ain't gonna happen. This is the way things are and they are not going to change. So why keep pushing for the impossible?
Aint going to happen
Jay, are Nominet confident that the High Court judge is going to support your argument....Don't forget the general consensus (including a high court judge) is that the domain name holder owns the name as property
Lee
Jay, are Nominet confident that the High Court judge is going to support your argument....Don't forget the general consensus (including a high court judge) is that the domain name holder owns the name as property
Lee
A domain name is not property
In America:
A Virginia court’s ruling last year in a case between Network Solutions and Umbro International said: "A domain name that is not a trade mark arguably entails only contract, not property rights. Thus, a domain name registration is the product of a contract for services between the registrar and registrant." A New York court ruled that a registrant (Michael Zukarov) had no property right in the name, only a contract right, and finding that he had “received everything he bargained for”, it dismissed his action.
In the UK:
This is a very interesting read and on the balance of probability refutes the argument that a domain name is property.
Regards
James Conaghan
In America:
A Virginia court’s ruling last year in a case between Network Solutions and Umbro International said: "A domain name that is not a trade mark arguably entails only contract, not property rights. Thus, a domain name registration is the product of a contract for services between the registrar and registrant." A New York court ruled that a registrant (Michael Zukarov) had no property right in the name, only a contract right, and finding that he had “received everything he bargained for”, it dismissed his action.
In the UK:
This is a very interesting read and on the balance of probability refutes the argument that a domain name is property.
Regards
James Conaghan
Interesting
That is a valid point jac but I am sure I read a ruling to the contrary in the US. Anyway, why waist court money be referring the question up the ladder.. alot remains unanswered thus is the DRS based on known ENGLISH law....when did the courts rule that a generic name should be transferred.
IF the domain name remains a contract then surely it should be opened up to competition ie. a supplier should be able to come in and allow a contract that doesnt have such onerous clauses.
Lee
That is a valid point jac but I am sure I read a ruling to the contrary in the US. Anyway, why waist court money be referring the question up the ladder.. alot remains unanswered thus is the DRS based on known ENGLISH law....when did the courts rule that a generic name should be transferred.
IF the domain name remains a contract then surely it should be opened up to competition ie. a supplier should be able to come in and allow a contract that doesnt have such onerous clauses.
Lee
Judges opinion
The other thing to consider is this....
The judge should decide that 'to the public at large' there is a feeling of property ownership when BUYING domain names....this is clearly evident by the amount of money changing hands. The judge should consider (in light of the above statement) that it is unreasonable for a domain name to be lost due to an administration error on renewing something they believed to be theirs indefinately.
Also the average buyer of the domain name does not read the t&c's in great depth therefore cannot truly understand that they will never own the domain name....highlighted by a previous High Court judge.
Lee
The other thing to consider is this....
The judge should decide that 'to the public at large' there is a feeling of property ownership when BUYING domain names....this is clearly evident by the amount of money changing hands. The judge should consider (in light of the above statement) that it is unreasonable for a domain name to be lost due to an administration error on renewing something they believed to be theirs indefinately.
Also the average buyer of the domain name does not read the t&c's in great depth therefore cannot truly understand that they will never own the domain name....highlighted by a previous High Court judge.
Lee
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 349
- Reaction score
- 26
Yes.
No this is not the general consensus but your personal view. Which in my view is a minority opinion.
On a related note, can I recommend a book to you?
Amazon.co.uk: Domain Name Law and Practice: An International Handbook: Books: Torsten Bettinger,Tony Willoughby,Sally Abel
Book recommendation
In today society people don't have time to read, on average a consumer will not pass the first page of google....
Experts may have the knowhow to right a book and I am sure they would not knowingly put their name to a flawed contract....maybe I should back down on my assertions that the contract should not be sold to Consumers without legal representation at the point of sale....I am sure that the whole network of minds wouldn't forget the Consumers rights when deciding who they sell the Nominet contract to...
I hereby back down on my assertions via Acorn but pressurise Trading Standards to decide.
Lee
In today society people don't have time to read, on average a consumer will not pass the first page of google....
Experts may have the knowhow to right a book and I am sure they would not knowingly put their name to a flawed contract....maybe I should back down on my assertions that the contract should not be sold to Consumers without legal representation at the point of sale....I am sure that the whole network of minds wouldn't forget the Consumers rights when deciding who they sell the Nominet contract to...
I hereby back down on my assertions via Acorn but pressurise Trading Standards to decide.
Lee
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 349
- Reaction score
- 26
I wouldn't label you as an average consumer by any stretch. I was recommending the book since you seem very interested in domain law and this is a fairly good read, believe it or not.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Posts
- 549
- Reaction score
- 15
...I believe this is the one that's important:
Plant v Service Direct (2006)
Lee - I think this is the case that Nominet has come forward as an 'interested party' - I'd suggest if there is still time we do the same (and anyone else really), because if the Judge rules domains as property... well, lets say - domainers you should be very very happy!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 349
- Reaction score
- 26
Proof if ever it was needed! I haven't got the slightest clue what that means.
- Status
