Suspended before renewal catch wanted (decent reward offered)

[wb]

Domain belongs to a dissolved company so there shouldn't be any reason why it doesn't drop - fingers crossed anyway.

I'll pay £1,000 (+ VAT if applicable) if you catch it.

If you fancy adding it to your time delay and can definitely offer a slot send me a PM.

Thanks!

 

[Aaron Clifford]

E-mailed you matt.

 

[wb]

Hasn't been deleted yet, so if anyone else can offer a space please send me a PM.

 

[anthony]

Send Nominet an email stating that they do not have any contract with a dissolved company for a domain name, this was major reason for changing their terms & conditions in October 2004. State that you believe they have previously made a declaration to a Court that a domain name is not an asset, and you therefore request that the domain name is dropped from their database with immediate effect.

A little known fact: Prior to the alteration to the T&Cs referenced above, the Treasury Solicitor had posted over 2,500 domain names for sale as assets, and from the proceeds of numerous sales, significant funds were raised for the Crown from the sale of those assets. Not a lot of people know that!

 

[wb]

Send Nominet an email stating that they do not have any contract with a dissolved company for a domain name, this was major reason for changing their terms & conditions in October 2004. State that you believe they have previously made a declaration to a Court that a domain name is not an asset, and you therefore request that the domain name is dropped from their database with immediate effect.

Interesting point, but have you tried this? Just had a quick skim through Nominet's rules and came across the following which would appear to show that they are within their right to suspend it rather than cancel it immediately. :?

10.2.6 If we become aware that the registrant company has changed its name, been dissolved, or otherwise removed from the list of active names on the Names Register, we may transfer, cancel, suspend or amend the Domain Name in accordance with our terms and conditions and by sending a notice in writing to the last known registered office of the company, or without notice if the registrant company has been removed from the list of active names on the Names Register.

 

[bensd]

If it has been suspended for a while it could mean that the owner is having the details changed but it hasn't shown up yet

 

[Bailey]

If it has been suspended for a while it could mean that the owner is having the details changed but it hasn't shown up yet

Agree, it could be on a hold-request for any number of valid reasons. I've seen at least one non-drop going back years

 

[anthony]

If it has been suspended for a while it could mean that the owner is having the details changed but it hasn't shown up yet

You mean where a former director can declare that the domain name should always have been theirs personally, and that they will indemnify Nominet to change the entry?

 

[bensd]

You mean where a former director can declare that the domain name should always have been theirs personally, and that they will indemnify Nominet to change the entry?

I assume that's what happens. I have seen a few early suspended domains change from the disolved company to an individual in the Whois.

 

[bensd]

You mean where a former director can declare that the domain name should always have been theirs personally, and that they will indemnify Nominet to change the entry?

I assume that's what happens. I have seen a few early suspended domains change from the disolved company to an individual in the Whois.

Maybe during the suspended period nominet contact the registrant email to check the ownership details are correct. If the company has just been disolved (and not gone into liquidation or administration) then why should they lose the domain just because it was originally registered in the company name.

 

[anthony]

I assume that's what happens. I have seen a few early suspended domains change from the disolved company to an individual in the Whois.

Maybe during the suspended period nominet contact the registrant email to check the ownership details are correct. If the company has just been disolved (and not gone into liquidation or administration) then why should they lose the domain just because it was originally registered in the company name.

Because it is a criminal offence to make a false declaration as a Director of a company. Also, if the company is dissolved at that point, there is no contract between Nominet and anyone for that domain name, and the former Director has no legal powers to declare.

BTW, why would Nominet contact the registrant email to check the ownership details?

 

[Edwin]

Looks like it is definitely possible to reinstate a dissolved company under certain circumstances, including to release assets, as long as the correct procedure is followed exactly... Of course, this can't be done to "cheat" creditors of what they are owed, but if there are no such external creditors then why not?
http://www.formationsdirect.com/whyrestoreastruckoffordissolvedcompany.aspx
http://www.formationsdirect.com/Documents/FD-Company-restoration-application-form.pdf

 

[bensd]

BTW, why would Nominet contact the registrant email to check the ownership details?

If someone has informed them the domain is registered to a dissolved company

 

[anthony]

Looks like it is definitely possible to reinstate a dissolved company under certain circumstances, including to release assets, as long as the correct procedure is followed exactly... Of course, this can't be done to "cheat" creditors of what they are owed, but if there are no such external creditors then why not?
http://www.formationsdirect.com/whyrestoreastruckoffordissolvedcompany.aspx
http://www.formationsdirect.com/Documents/FD-Company-restoration-application-form.pdf

Edwin, restoration would not restore the contract with Nominet, they were very clear in their stance in 2004 on domain names with the Treasury, Nominet consider the contract as ended at the point the company is dissolved, it was the reason given for Bona Vacantia no longer being able to sell domain names as assets, so allowing an ex-Director to have the option to subsequently claim a domain name as their own when the contract no longer exists is clearly wrong, unfair in fact. This was highlighted to the PAB in 2004:

"Michael Duggan reported that he had been contacted by the Bona Vacantia Department of the Treasury Solicitor regarding the final version of Nominet's revised Terms and Conditions. They were unhappy with the fact that under the new terms a domain name registered to a company that had been dissolved, e.g. post liquidation, would be cancelled automatically and that this was a major change to the version put out to consultation and discussed by the PAB in February. Lesley Cowley responded that there had been several communications between Nominet and the Treasury Solicitor on this issue. They had been informed of the suggested changes regarding the cancellation of domain names and invited to make a submission to the PAB meeting, but had failed to do so. The PAB noted the concerns of the Treasury Solicitor on the matter.
Lesley Cowley advised the PAB that the new Terms and Conditions had been approved by the Plain English Campaign and had achieved their Crystal Mark for clarity.

Resolution
The PAB resolved to note the CoM's proposal to implement the new terms and conditions and that they will be published in accordance with the CoM's proposal."

If someone has informed them the domain is registered to a dissolved company

That's not for Nominet to delve further on, the contract has already ceased to exist at that point with the recorded registrant, they simply need to refer to the Companies House register. The ex-directors are exactly that, ex, they have no legal powers whatsoever.

 

[Bailey]

Well Nominet thankfully do not operate as Anthony seems to believe - I know we have been down this discussion route at least once before. Lets not forget up until just a few years ago it was a requirement of Companies house to have two Directors. and in my instance the death of my wife left me in non-compliance. And yes as I've mentioned before the Wolves came out ( not one or two but a whole bloody pack)

I'll defend Nominets ability to support individuals and businesses as they deem appropriate. I genuinely find it such a shame to see Nominet under attack in such a consistant manner - I can only assume there must be some well founded reason buried somewhere

 

[Bailey]

Cheers for that clarification Sean - my focus clearly is a little to personal (again). I will add however how many times have you come across a domain only to find it's the webmaster in control or a company employee -

Therefore a overally cautious approach by Nominet when a hold request is lodged. and as Edwin points out the indemnity thats is required by Nominet is pretty water-tight (or appeared that way to me)

 

[anthony]

Well Nominet thankfully do not operate as Anthony seems to believe - I know we have been down this discussion route at least once before. Lets not forget up until just a few years ago it was a requirement of Companies house to have two Directors. and in my instance the death of my wife left me in non-compliance. And yes as I've mentioned before the Wolves came out ( not one or two but a whole bloody pack)

I'll defend Nominets ability to support individuals and businesses as they deem appropriate. I genuinely find it such a shame to see Nominet under attack in such a consistant manner - I can only assume there must be some well founded reason buried somewhere

Bailey, I think you're blurring the line on this. You've made your point clear in the past that you considered your domains to be your own, and you followed a procedure according with Nominet, no one has any doubt that you were honest about it. As I recall you didn't retain all those domains, some vultures mopped a few up whilst you were dealing with dire personal matters. This is not about that scenario, as well you can tell from the thread. It's whether a Director can come along and keep a domain name clearly registered by a company, and the powers extended to that individual after all contractual ties have ceased to exist.

As for the indemnity, that simply covers Nominets' arse, obviously.

 

[Bailey]

Sorry Anthony I do tend to jump into Nominets defence - too fast Obviously i need to be aware that I'm the one being unduly influenced in this thread. cheers

 

[Edwin]

Two things are being conflated on this thread that should probably be kept separate.

1) Should a director be entitled to a domain name formerly owned by that company?
2) Should a shareholder be entitled to a domain name formerly owned by that company? And how much does their stake in the company influence this? And what if the shareholder is ALSO a director?

In both instances, it will be up to experts - following the correct, established process - to decide the merits of each case. But it is very likely that 1) will be considered from a different starting point than 2)

Personally I agree with Anthony, if a company is dissolved it has been through an exhaustive legal process and no longer exists as an entity so the domains should be deleted immediately.

There is also a (different) exhaustive legal process that can result in a company being reinstated. If that exhaustive legal process is followed within the "grace period" before a domain name has been deleted, why shouldn't those that followed the process be allowed to retain the domain?

 

[Edwin]

Sean, are you saying that even if the correct process is followed by the person or people who are legally permitted to reinstate a company (i.e. to take it out of "dissolved" status so that it is entitled to trade again) any domain names associated with that company should still be taken off them, even though under the law that company - the same company, not a different one of the same name - is accepted to "exist" from that point forward?