Talk about make you paranoid!

stender · Aug 25, 2006

I had a missed call on my phone. Checked the message and it was a mike from nominet asking me to call back? Called him back and he worked in their legal department but he had a different name for my phone number?
Turns out there had been a DRS against the previous registrant of a domain I now owned and he was actually trying to contact him. I then ask what domain it is and he says he cannot tell me! but said no action was taken in the previous DRS.

Talk about make you paranoid that your sitting on a timebomb!:???:

retired_member6 · Aug 25, 2006

You could always issue nominet with a freedom of information act enquiry, not sure it would get you anywhere though. It brings up a good point though, should nominet reveal previous history in such cases, it's a bit like buying damaged goods.

static · Aug 25, 2006

A classic Nominesque conversation. Say nothing, and speak even less.

Beasty · Aug 26, 2006

LeeOwen said:
You could always issue nominet with a freedom of information act enquiry, not sure it would get you anywhere though. It brings up a good point though, should nominet reveal previous history in such cases, it's a bit like buying damaged goods.

Nominet are not a government body nor are they on the list of other bodies subject to FOIA - so they do not and will not respond to such a request I'm afraid. If - like me - you think that they should be then you should lobby the Department for Constitutional Affairs to have them added to the list in the next review. Don't hold your breath though!

One might get further with a Data Protection Act request.

static · Aug 26, 2006

"Nomidom, the land that Parliament forgot".

Jac · Aug 26, 2006

Beasty said:
Nominet are not a government body nor are they on the list of other bodies subject to FOIA - so they do not and will not respond to such a request I'm afraid. If - like me - you think that they should be then you should lobby the Department for Constitutional Affairs to have them added to the list in the next review. Don't hold your breath though!

One might get further with a Data Protection Act request.

Why don't you tell the good folk in this thread how adhering to the FOIA would dramatically increase time spent on enquiries and costs and end up costing every registrant something. The government agencies I have spoken to hate the time and expense involved in adhering to FOIA. It is a cumbersome and expensive procedure and if anything needs reviewing, it is the FOIA and how it is administered.

I am also not sure what Nominet is supposed to have done wrong here or why your reference to the DPA? Did they divulge information they shouldn't have when stender called them? Seems to me the complaint is that they didn't divulge enough ... which is not actually a complaint because if they didn't, they complied with the DPA.

Regards
James Conaghan

retired_member11 · Aug 26, 2006

The FOI Act is a good thing. It helps to peel away at least one or two of the layers of the secretive state we live in. It may cost time and money...but so does everything else. What they hate more is the erosion of their ability to conceal their illegitimate actions.

Nominet should be subject to the FOI Act. My vote will go elsewhere next time.

Beasty · Aug 26, 2006

Jac said:
Why don't you tell the good folk in this thread how adhering to the FOIA would dramatically increase time spent on enquiries and costs and end up costing every registrant something. The government agencies I have spoken to hate the time and expense involved in adhering to FOIA. It is a cumbersome and expensive procedure and if anything needs reviewing, it is the FOIA and how it is administered.

I am also not sure what Nominet is supposed to have done wrong here or why your reference to the DPA? Did they divulge information they shouldn't have when stender called them? Seems to me the complaint is that they didn't divulge enough ... which is not actually a complaint because if they didn't, they complied with the DPA.

Regards
James Conaghan

Given that Nominet made another 3 and a bit million quid surplus last year and has nearly 10 million in reserves, I reckon it could afford the overhead that being obliged to be more transparent brings.

Stender seemed to want to know which domain it was that had had a previous DRS Complaint against it - even one that had not gone that far. If he put in a DPA data subject request against his own name, the file relating to the domain and so the details of the previous complaint should show up - since there should be some record of the contact from Nominet and so the reason behind it. Just a thought...not legal advice of course.

Beasty · Aug 26, 2006

argonaut said:
The FOI Act is a good thing. It helps to peel away at least one or two of the layers of the secretive state we live in. It may cost time and money...but so does everything else. What they hate more is the erosion of their ability to conceal their illegitimate actions.

Nominet should be subject to the FOI Act.

Spot on about FOIA Argonaut!

Jac · Aug 27, 2006

argonaut said:
The FOI Act is a good thing.

Never suggested it wasn't. I am just suggesting that people should make decisions based on ALL the evidence. The FOIA is expensive to administer; ask any government agency. It also doesn't necessarily give the people what they think they are getting. The old latin adage seems apt: "Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur".

(The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.)

argonaut said:
It helps to peel away at least one or two of the layers of the secretive state we live in. It may cost time and money...but so does everything else. What they hate more is the erosion of their ability to conceal their illegitimate actions.

I think it's a tad naive to think the powers that be will not keep secretive what they want to keep secretive; no matter what act is in place.

argonaut said:
Nominet should be subject to the FOI Act.

To a degree it already is, in that one can usually get all the information requested if it is pertinent to themselves. I thought the original poster was complaining he couldn't get information that wasn't pertinent to him... and that sounds to me as it should be. (DPA being what it is.)

argonaut said:
My vote will go elsewhere next time.

I'll try not to lose sleep.

Regards
James Conaghan

retired_member6 · Aug 27, 2006

Jac said:
Why don't you tell the good folk in this thread how adhering to the FOIA would dramatically increase time spent on enquiries and costs and end up costing every registrant something. The government agencies I have spoken to hate the time and expense involved in adhering to FOIA. It is a cumbersome and expensive procedure and if anything needs reviewing, it is the FOIA and how it is administered.

I am also not sure what Nominet is supposed to have done wrong here or why your reference to the DPA? Did they divulge information they shouldn't have when stender called them? Seems to me the complaint is that they didn't divulge enough ... which is not actually a complaint because if they didn't, they complied with the DPA.

Regards
James Conaghan

Domains should come with previous history, just like a car or a report on a house, perhaps you could drop the transfer fee and sell a proper report on a domain instead. If there's been a DRS on a domain before, whether mediated or otherwise, the new registrant should be told. Also Nominet called stender.

stender · Aug 27, 2006

I wasn't after any information (even tho' he did say the name of the person he was after) apart from the name of the domain in question. That wouldn't of been divulging any sensitive information about anyone else. I just said to him i'd like to know so I can let the domain drop to avoid any potential trouble.
Can't see a problem with that???

Jac · Aug 27, 2006

LeeOwen said:
Domains should come with previous history, just like a car or a report on a house, perhaps you could drop the transfer fee and sell a proper report on a domain instead. If there's been a DRS on a domain before, whether mediated or otherwise, the new registrant should be told.

Actually, that's not a bad idea.

Regards
James Conaghan