.UK Announced

[Stephen]

20,000 explanation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel
......."We also just picked up this little snippet from an old release concerning the Short Domain consultation Nominet undertook back in 2010 prior to an issue relating to a little over 2,800 short domains. “Nominet also wrote to the holders of approximately 20,000 trademarks corresponding to the character sets potentially subject to release ……” So they contacted directly 20,000 POTENTIAL stakeholders as part of that consultation but not the ACTUAL 10,276,759 stakeholders this go round. hmmmmmmm"
and the link is here:
http://i.co.uk/?p=11797

I asked Eleanor Bradley

As regards the .uk proposal, Nominet have repeatedly stated they could not contact the registrants by email of the 10+ million UK due to legal issues to do with the Data Protection Act raised by your internal legal team, could you please clarify why it was possible (if it is true) that Nominet could contact 20,000 trademark holders previously?

She has repsonded with a resonable explanation on the legal side, but should Nominet still have made more effort with domain owners/businesses for .uk

Dear Stephen

We contacted the trademark holders you refer using publicly available contact information, rather than data provided to us pursuant to a contract (as is the case with .uk domain name registrants). I understand the data protection provisions apply to email contact, a physical letter was sent to the trademark holders.

Regards
Eleanor Bradley

I wonder why Nominet didn't write to all UK trademark holders for .uk consultation?

 

[mojoco]

"We contacted the trademark holders you refer using publicly available contact information"


Why is it acceptable to use publicly available contact information for trademark holders but not domain registrants who have their contact info listed in the whois record?

 

[Edwin]

"We contacted the trademark holders you refer using publicly available contact information"


Why is it acceptable to use publicly available contact information for trademark holders but not domain registrants who have their contact info listed in the whois record?

Because one was perceived as likely to bring a cash windfall to Nominet (more bidders to contest the short domain auctions) and the other was anticipated to produce further opposition to direct.uk.

Oh, sorry, was I supposed to be making up some sort of nonsensical excuse like Nominet do?

 

[TinkyWinky]

Why is it acceptable to use publicly available contact information for trademark holders but not domain registrants who have their contact info listed in the whois record?

Because Nominet say so - and we all respect the quality and calibre of the board and their sound legal advice and knowledge of everything in the UK online world :???:

 

[Nigel]

Because one was perceived as likely to bring a cash windfall to Nominet (more bidders to contest the short domain auctions) and the other was anticipated to produce further opposition to direct.uk.

Oh, sorry, was I supposed to be making up some sort of nonsensical excuse like Nominet do?

Absolutely Edwin

Notice how Nominet have never mentioned the fact that the Data Protection Act does not apply to Limited Companies. There are 1.3m Ltd companies in the UK. A large percentage of those will be trading with a .co.uk domain. So why didn't Nominet contact them?

 

[Edwin]

Notice how Nominet have never mentioned the fact that the Data Protection Act does not apply to Limited Companies. There are 1.3m Ltd companies in the UK. A large percentage of those will be trading with a .co.uk domain. So why didn't Nominet contact them?

I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I made a moment ago

 

[Stephen]

whois v ipo data

"We contacted the trademark holders you refer using publicly available contact information"

Why is it acceptable to use publicly available contact information for trademark holders but not domain registrants who have their contact info listed in the whois record?

Nominet are bound by the rules of Whois like everybody else.

Check out a return "whois" request at the bottom:

This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2013.

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.org.uk/whois, which
includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

I did phone the Intellectual Propert Office (ipo.gov.uk) to check if you can scrape their data and use it for marketing purposes,
as could not see any small print on the website preventing that action.

They suprisingly stated "open government license" conditions apply and would not elaborate further, if it was or not allowed to use the details for marketing.

However Nominet have the address and email and a contract with the "registrant" of UK domains and the terms of that contract in my opinion would allow nominet to contact registrants about the .uk proposal.

 

[Stephen]

Yep, I can confirm that I got a letter from Nominet to me as a trademark holder to inform me of the up and coming short domain release strings, don't have a copy here but they certainly sent out snail mail letter to some trademark holders myself included found in the IPO database - it's not like they were canvassing current customers that time either.

If it is possible to post the contents of the letter, especially if they mentioned they got your details from the ipo.gov.uk website?

 

[markb]

If for some reason nominet ignore everyones comments and went ahead unchallenged with the direct.uk implementation, do you think they will email all existing .org.uk and .co.uk domain holders to let them know about the auctions for corresponding domains? We know they have stated that direct.uk is a totally new product (even though its aimed at businesses who already own .co.uk domains) and has nothing to do with existing domain registrants.

 

[Nigel]

If for some reason nominet ignore everyones comments and went ahead unchallenged with the direct.uk implementation, do you think they will email all existing .org.uk and .co.uk domain holders to let them know about the auctions for corresponding domains? We know they have stated that direct.uk is a totally new product (even though its aimed at businesses who already own .co.uk domains) and has nothing to do with existing domain registrants.

I asked them that question. Here's what Eleanor Bradley COO of Nominet replied to me

"We have just completed the consultation on direct.uk, this is a genuine consultation and no decision has been taken on whether to proceed with direct.uk in its current or an alternative form. Similarly, no decision has been taken on how registrants of existing .uk domain names will be made aware of the launch of direct.uk if the decision is to proceed."

 

[Nigel]

Mark - This is the way I put it to Eleanor Bradley

'In view of the legal advice you received which stopped you sending emails to registrants, can I ask you how you propose informing registrants of the introduction of directuk if it proceeds in its current form? If your legal advisers believe that it is a ‘new service’ and that the Data Protection Act (and your interpretation of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003) prevents you from emailing registrants are you saying that no notice by email will be given to existing registrants of the chance to register a direct.uk domain if it proceeds? Will existing registrants need to rely on information from the media, press, and newspapers to find out about the possible launch of direct.uk?'

 

[Systreg]

If for some reason nominet ignore everyones comments and went ahead unchallenged with the direct.uk implementation, do you think they will email all existing .org.uk and .co.uk domain holders to let them know about the auctions for corresponding domains? We know they have stated that direct.uk is a totally new product (even though its aimed at businesses who already own .co.uk domains) and has nothing to do with existing domain registrants.

From the ico.gov site regarding spam emails http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/online/spam_emails.aspx

What does the law say?

The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 cover the sending of email marketing. This legislation says that organisations must only send marketing emails to individuals if you have agreed to receive them, except where there is a clearly defined customer relationship.

I'm not signed up to any of Nominets email lists, so I don't receive anything from them, but I need to know about auctions etc if they do bring out these new domains, at the same time, if they decide to email me about them, that will be spamming me as I haven't agreed for them to email me.

To get around that, Nominet could use the "except where there is a clearly defined customer relationship" part of the quote above, but at the same time, why then did they not email all registrants about the consultations, they could have as that would also come under the bolded part of the quote, as all registrants are clearly in a defined customer relationship with Nominet.

 

[Stephen]

...To get around that, Nominet could use the "except where there is a clearly defined customer relationship" part of the quote above, but at the same time, why then did they not email all registrants about the consultations, they could have as that would also come under the bolded part of the quote, as all registrants are clearly in a defined customer relationship with Nominet.

If they go ahead with .uk, whatever changes they make to it, they will use this infomormation about emails to allow them legally to send out emails about .uk.

The sceptical part of me would say they will raise more money from the launch by sending emails to the owners of the 10 million UK domains when they announce its launch not at the consultation stage.

Will they also contact by mail all the UK trademark holders?

They will never it admit, sending the emails to registrants, would have been the right thing to do for the .uk consultation.

Strange that this was pointed out to them a long time ago and yet they didn't contact registrants with a wales address about .wales?

 

[Nigel]

From the ico.gov site regarding spam emails http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/online/spam_emails.aspx

[/B]

I'm not signed up to any of Nominets email lists, so I don't receive anything from them, but I need to know about auctions etc if they do bring out these new domains, at the same time, if they decide to email me about them, that will be spamming me as I haven't agreed for them to email me.

To get around that, Nominet could use the "except where there is a clearly defined customer relationship" part of the quote above, but at the same time, why then did they not email all registrants about the consultations, they could have as that would also come under the bolded part of the quote, as all registrants are clearly in a defined customer relationship with Nominet.

Great observation - We need answers from Nominet on this. I see one of their legal representatives is on the forum today. Can't he give us some answers right here and now?

 

[Nigel]

Just found the electronic mail regulations that apply to the sending of emails to limited companies or 'corporate subscribers' as they are called. Now I don't agree that informing existing registrants about the implications of direct.uk and asking for feedback is 'marketing' but it seems Nominet are trying to class it as such. But even if it could be construed as 'marketing', business to business marketing is clearly allowed under these regulations. So Nominet could have emailed limited companies and other 'corporate subscribers' to ask for feedback. I cannot think of any reason why a responsible registry would not have taken up this opportunity.

There are around 1.3m Limited Companies in the UK. Most Limited Companies will have a website and most will operate from a .co.uk domain name. There is simply no excuse for not reaching out to these companies. It's worth noting that the Data Protection Act also does not apply to Limited Companies. I cannot believe that Nominet are not aware of these facts. It also wouldn't have been hard for Nominet to identify Limited Companies on their database. Certainly a lot easier than identifying, and writing to the 20,000 registered trademark holders in 2010when they were conducting their consultation for the short letter domain release and auction.

Here's the link to the relevant page. There's a lot of info and you'll need to scroll at least threequarters down the page.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisat...communications/the_guide/electronic_mail.aspx

And here is the relevant information:


[B]How do the Regulations apply to business-to-business marketing by electronic mail? [/B]

Your obligations are as follows:
•You must not conceal your identity when you send, or instigate the sending of, a marketing message by electronic mail to anyone (including corporate subscribers); and

•you must provide a valid address to which the recipient (including corporate subscribers) can send an opt-out request (Regulation 23 applies).


Only individual subscribers have an enforceable right of opt-out under these Regulations. This is where that individual withdraws the consent they previously gave to receiving marketing by electronic mail (that consent only being valid for the time being (Regulation 22(2) applies)). Corporate subscribers do not have this right.

Recipients who are corporate subscribers do not have an enforceable opt-out right under the Regulations. But where your sending of marketing material to the employee of a company includes processing their personal data (that is, you know the name of the person you are contacting), then that individual has a fundamental and enforceable right under Section 11 of the Data Protection Act to ask you to stop sending them marketing material.

In our view, it makes no business sense to continue sending marketing material to a business contact who no longer wishes to hear from you. Arguably, by failing to respect a business-to-business opt-out request you may appear indifferent to your commercial reputation.

How do these Regulations apply to unsolicited marketing material sent by electronic mail to individual employees of a corporate subscriber if that material promotes goods and services that are clearly meant for their personal or domestic use?

The ‘Spam’ report of an Inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Internet Group (APPIG) recommended that the Information Commissioner set out clear guidance as to how business-to-business communications are to be distinguished from messages intended for individual subscribers. This recommendation was prompted by an observation that an invitation to buy Viagra, sent to the sales address of a shipping company, could only be interpreted as being sent to an individual, since it would be of no business relevance. The problem is that the ‘opt-in’ and soft opt-in rules do not extend to sending marketing emails to corporate subscribers. In the example above the subscriber will be the shipping company, because that is the person who is party to a contract with a provider of public electronic communications systems. So this means that even an email addressed to an individual in the company will not be covered by the Regulations, although that email may be subject to the DPA, and an opt-out request under Section 11 of the DPA could be issued.

For the purposes of the Regulations, it is irrelevant that an email sent to a corporate subscriber’s address is obviously aimed at an individual because it promotes a product that is for personal or domestic use. The Regulations simply do not cover emails sent to a corporate subscriber, except that you must identify yourself and to provide contact details. However, such emails are likely to be covered by the individual’s right to object to direct marketing under the Data Protection Act.

We understand that the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code restricts the sending of such emails to corporate email addresses. For more on the CAP Code visit their website www.cap.org.uk.

 

[markb]

I would say one of the obvious answers to why they havent asked for feedback from all domain owners, or just limited companies, is the fact that they wouldnt have the manpower and time to read and process all the feedback from them. It was probably just easier to ask a limited number of people for their responses.

 

[Systreg]

I would say one of the obvious answers to why they havent asked for feedback from all domain owners, or just limited companies, is the fact that they wouldnt have the manpower and time to read and process all the feedback from them. It was probably just easier to ask a limited number of people for their responses.

To me, that wouldn't be a valid excuse, as they seem to like spending their millions, they could have hired as as many people as they needed to go through the feedback, and present Nominet with a simple yes or no to each one about the consultation, they would have got a good idea of peoples opinions from that count.

 

[markb]

I was wondering when I read about the 'children’s charities coalition' opposing the direct.uk proposals. Is there any coalitions for small businesses in the UK that could help and use their power to put pressure on nominet?

We all know that its going to be mainly small businesses that suffer from the direct.uk proposals, so I think its a good idea if we could get people on board who support small businesses.

 

[GreyWing]

Maybe trying to contact one of the Dragons from the BBC, they are always up for a bit of publicity and it is a great cause. They usually have twitter accounts and are on the ball so will spot the importance of this.

 

[markb]

Maybe trying to contact one of the Dragons from the BBC, they are always up for a bit of publicity and it is a great cause. They usually have twitter accounts and are on the ball so will spot the importance of this.

I don't think think its something the any of the dragons would be interested in, they are usually only interested in their own companies, and they are not small businesses. They have a lot of money behind them and always make sure they have trademarks filed, so the direct.uk proposals wouldnt effect them directly.

I'm talking about the millions of very small businesses where people work from home or small offices and have .co.uk websites, without any trademarks filed to protect their names, or use more generic names where they cannot trademark their names. These businesses that don't have a lot of spare money are the ones that are going to lose their corresponding domain names under the proposals.