September .uk drop discussion

[bensd]

@dropped.uk I received an email from nominet at 21:06 yesterday confirming they had completed the transfer. Does your system show a time when the TAG was changed to Namecheap?

I purchased the .co.uk and .uk pair from the seller today after a few weeks of negotiations.

I completed the nominet transfer (and received their confirmation email) but when I tried to add the domains to my chosen registrar (Yay), I noticed that the transfer said pending registry approval and checking the Whois it now says NameCheap.

I will be calling Nominet in the morning to find out what happened.

Monitoring this, but mix.uk is on the move...

LIVEDOMAINS > YAYYAY > NAMECHEAP-INC

View attachment 2994

 

[Gill]

.

Who is the victim: the people that had their domains hijacked or the people scorned for doing it?

Don't be so melodramatic, the people you're talking about cared so much they

a) Didn't take up rights during the RoR
b) Chose not to renew the domains that someone had registered for free on their behalf

You're just a bunch of busy bodies sticking your noses into something that's none of your business. Worse still you found yourselves a useful punch bag and like the cowards you are, you're not just content to stick the knife in, you're twisting it as well.

 

[Gill]

Charlie.uk reverted to the rightful registrant https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=charlie.uk&cc-num=#whois-result

That'd be the one that couldn't be arsed renewing it?

 

[Murray]

.Don't be so melodramatic, the people you're talking about cared so much they
.

Sorry If I'm short here I'm just tired of saying the same things over and over

A registrant either has anywhere up until cancellation to renew (as is in the t&c) or they have nothing

A registration can't depend on some random person outside opinion on whether the registrant wants the domain or not

What's happened breaks the whole system, it breaks any trust you can have in the .uk namespace, it makes domains unusable

You have up until cancellation or you have nothing

 

[Gill]

Sorry If I'm short here I'm just tired of saying the same things over and over

A registrant either has anywhere up until cancellation to renew (as is in the t&c) or they have nothing

A registration can't depend on some random person outside opinion on whether the registrant wants the domain or not

What's happened breaks the whole system, it breaks any trust you can have in the .uk namespace, it makes domains unusable

You have up until cancellation or you have nothing

You can try all you want to build this into a soap opera but the facts are that it involves a tiny number of names registered to people who hadn't bothered to renew them and most importantly has nothing whatsoever to do with you or anyone else on this forum.

 

[dropped.uk]

@dropped.uk I received an email from nominet at 21:06 yesterday confirming they had completed the transfer. Does your system show a time when the TAG was changed to Namecheap?

@bensd
I don't have the exact time, but the tag change from YAYYAY to NAMECHEAP-INC was roughly between 21:45 and 22:30.

 

[Murray]

You can try all you want to build this into a soap opera but the facts are that it involves a tiny number of names registered to people who hadn't bothered to renew them and most importantly has nothing whatsoever to do with you or anyone else on this forum.

You have until cancellation to renew, the only time you can say a registrant didn't bother to renew is when the domain is cancelled by the registry and no time before

It's much bigger than individual names (albeit taking just one is bad enough) you're arguing contracts aren't important? that's not a trivial thing

 

[super-whois]

You can try all you want to build this into a soap opera but the facts are that it involves a tiny number of names registered to people who hadn't bothered to renew them and most importantly has nothing whatsoever to do with you or anyone else on this forum.

Surely by your argument, the fact that they weren't renewed was none of your business? Or are you being a hypocrite?

 

[Gill]

Surely by your argument, the fact that they weren't renewed was none of your business? Or are you being a hypocrite?

I haven't got a clue what your point is? I couldn't give a shit who renewed, registered or stole what so long as it didn't affect me. My main gripes are people being accused of theft and group bullying of someone when you don't even have the facts of what happened.

 

[LCHappy]

I haven't got a clue what your point is? I couldn't give a shit who renewed, registered or stole what so long as it didn't affect me. My main gripes are people being accused of theft and group bullying of someone when you don't even have the facts of what happened.

You've already said you didn't even know what Nominet's Terms are, your own states you will take ownership of a domain of one of your customers within 30 days of expiry. You aren't dishonest, but why should anyone take you seriously when you have already agreed you have no idea what you are talking about?

 

[bensd]

@dropped.uk thanks Guy

@bensd
I don't have the exact time, but the tag change from YAYYAY to NAMECHEAP-INC was roughly between 21:45 and 22:30.

 

[Gill]

You've already said you didn't even know what Nominet's Terms are, your own states you will take ownership of a domain of one of your customers within 30 days of expiry. You aren't dishonest, but why should anyone take you seriously when you have already agreed you have no idea what you are talking about?

I actually said that I misread Nominet's T&C's and that they for their part had also failed to pick up on my mistake.

Why not address my point about the bullying of Susannah when people don't have the facts?

 

[super-whois]

Why not address my point about the bullying of Susannah when people don't have the facts?

If you read what has been posted here, you will find that Susannah has had ample opportunity to reply to legitimate questions. Susannah replied to one of them clearly saying that there was more than one way to skin a cat, and that Fasthosts have the trail. The fact that the domains have been reverted and that there has been no reply to provide any alternative to the assumption that Susannah asked Fasthosts for the name, and Fasthosts gave it, is not bullying. If anything, Susannah is the one that have taken you for a mug.

 

[signature]

Please, people, let's be civil, no need for insult or name calling. This issue affect all of us, its the terms .UK name space operates on and we cant ignore because it did not affect us at the moment.

 

[Gill]

Susannah has stated that she did nothing wrong so maybe one of you oracles can show the evidence that she's lying?

 

[TheWizard]

You can try all you want to build this into a soap opera but the facts are that it involves a tiny number of names registered to people who hadn't bothered to renew them and most importantly has nothing whatsoever to do with you or anyone else on this forum.

A great number of people on here are members of Nominet, so it has everything to do with them, given it affects the reputation of the .uk namespace, its operators and public opinion on those who are members.

 

[Gill]

A great number of people on here are members of Nominet, so it has everything to do with them, given it affects the reputation of the .uk namespace, its operators and public opinion on those who are members.

It reflects on Fasthosts and nobody else. You're just trying to justify sticking your nose into something that's got nothing to do with you.

 

[Murray]

maybe one of you oracles can show the evidence that she's lying?

Yes

Earlier in the thread when discussing acquiring the domain "with everything bound over by the agreement of the .co.uk holder"

A quote from theregister.com article

"That particular domain name, charlie.uk, which was assigned to Leon Hughes, who owns charlie.co.uk, was ultimately transferred to Susannah Clark. Hughes said he did not authorize the sale"

Ok you could argue to the best of her knowledge it was bound over by the agreement of the co.uk holder but it doesn't appear she dealt with anyone but FastHosts? if she did why not clarify?

If you're proven to have given factually inaccurate information and then no clarification after is everyone else the bad guy for pointing that out and being sceptical?

 

[Gill]

Ok you could argue to the best of her knowledge it was bound over by the agreement of the co.uk holder but it doesn't appear she dealt with anyone but FastHosts? if she did why not clarify?

So based on nothing but hearsay and conjecture you chose to assume deceit rather than take her at her word? It doesn't matter that Leon was the registrant and didn't sell the name, what matters is how Susannah came to be the registrant and if that was by asking Fasthosts if she could buy it and them agreeing, then they're at fault.

If you're proven to have given factually inaccurate information and then no clarification after is everyone else the bad guy for pointing that out and being sceptical?

She said she'd done nothing wrong, why should she elaborate on how when it's nobody's business.

 

[Gill]

I will repeat my comment made on the other thread about the news article:

Sadly for somebody normally so vocal, on this occasion silence speaks louder than words .

Bollocks, the dogs had been let loose and she went to ground. This place has some really good people who say nothing because of the pack mentality of a few smart arses.