.UK Announced

[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 Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.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.

 

[Stephen]

contact all registrants

..... 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.

Thanks for that researched post.

Also I think it is worth pointing out that under there "contract" with all registrars I believe Nominet have the right to contact all registrants with relevant information that would effect them.

Although nominet decided unilaterally that .uk was to be a new product rather than a migration that many have suggested it should be, they still gave some rights to existing registrants and therefore those registrants should be consulted, to find out if they feel those rights were adequate?

 

[Nigel]

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.

Very well put Mark - I think the opposition campaign has wind in its sails. I think most pressure will come through MPs raising this in Parliament and Media interest. We need to get Labour MPs involved. We need a Labour MP to question the statement made by Ed Vaizey on 8th January 2013 when he was asked what was being done to protect small businesses with .co.uk addresses. He did not answer the question directly and said that:

"Nominet has informed Government that its consultation is gathering perspectives from a broad range of stakeholders—including small businesses and their representatives—to inform their decision-making. Nominet has stated that it will be carefully considering that feedback in line with the company’s public purpose."

Yet we know that Nominet did not directly contact any of its existing registrants including the millions of small businesses with .co.uk addresses. I believe that information that should have been divulged to Parliament. Mr Vaizey says the information he provided came from Nominet. It wouldn't be hard for a Labour MP to score some points on this. If you have a Labour MP in your constituency what harm would it do to collate some information and send it off. That's how monaghan on here got the question raised by his MP. That reminds me - I've had no response from Mr Vaizey to my two emails - think I'll phone his office.

 

[Stephen]

local MP

Another MP to add to those that have made representations to Nominet: my local MP Clive Betts (Sheffield South-East), who wrote to them after meeting me in early December....

Thanks for the post it prompted me into action, as although I have written to several MP's about .uk, apart from Stephen McPartland had received no real responses, so I thought I'd have another go.

So I resent my message to my local MP Caroline Nokes MP attaching "What is wrong with the Nominet .uk proposal?" with a bit of update information and now she says she is going to bring it up with the Minister and I have an appointment with her to bring her up to date on .uk.