how much money is nominet making?
Barry Dorrans
"Anonymous" <rema...@remailer.xganon.com> wrote in message
news:3177c7d27e1cb0b2...@remailer.xganon.com...
> Wages and Salaries 1274 484
> PRE TAX PROFIT 2656 2261
HOW MUCH?
> Number of Employees 77
Holy crap. That's a seriously high set of salaries.
Peter Gradwell
<rema...@remailer.xganon.com> wrote:
>any ideas?
The AGM is in July.
peter
--
peter gradwell. gradwell dot com Ltd. http://www.gradwell.com/
engineering & hosting services for email, web and usenet
Barry Dorrans
news:abbaryybaqrybet...@news.demon.co.uk...
> data.
Well it was 8am on a monday :) What have I got wrong?
David Husband
Anonymous <rema...@remailer.xganon.com> writes
>
>Director : DR WILLIAM BLACK
>Address : 2 CASSINGTON ROAD, YARNTON, KIDLINGTON,
> OXFORDSHIRE, OX5 1QA.
>Country of Origin : UNITED KINGDOM
>Other Directorships : BROOMFIELD ASSOCIATES LIMITED, CENTR, INCOP
> LIMITED,
> NOMINET.44 LIMITED,
Oh look another Nominet limited by guarantee company...
> NOMINET.EU LIMITED,
Oh look another Nominet limited by guarantee company...
> NOMINET.ORG LIMITED,
Oh look another Nominet limited by guarantee company...
>21/03/02 - The subject is Limited by Guarantee therefore has no share
>capital or shareholders. The subject is not leagally obliged to file
>annual accounts with companies registry for public inspection.
Oh so that is four Nominet limited by guarantee companies that don't
have to file accounts for public inspection.
How strange -- I wonder why ?
How strange as Nominet "does not make money.."
--
David Husband, Portland, Dorset. (Use rot-13 to get correct e-mail address)
[I am posting from uk.legal and I am not a lawyer.]
Barry Dorrans
"Dave {Reply Address in.sig}" <noone$@llondel.org> wrote in message
news:abbaryybaqrybet...@news.demon.co.uk...
> giving 16545 each
It was? Damn. Apologies, me bad
Peter Gradwell
wrote:
>>21/03/02 - The subject is Limited by Guarantee therefore has no share
>>capital or shareholders. The subject is not leagally obliged to file
>>annual accounts with companies registry for public inspection.
>
>Oh so that is four Nominet limited by guarantee companies that don't
>have to file accounts for public inspection.
>
>How strange -- I wonder why ?
I think Nominet went on an intellectual property protection excise.
You also missed of INCOP Limited.
You can get the annual report & accounts from Nominet if you ask.
David Husband
Gradwell <pe...@gradwell.com> writes
>On 6 May 2002 04:56:08 -0500, David Husband <Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx>
>wrote:
>
>>>21/03/02 - The subject is Limited by Guarantee therefore has no share
>>>capital or shareholders. The subject is not leagally obliged to file
>>>annual accounts with companies registry for public inspection.
>>
>>Oh so that is four Nominet limited by guarantee companies that don't
>>have to file accounts for public inspection.
>>
>>How strange -- I wonder why ?
>
>I think Nominet went on an intellectual property protection excise.
What IP would they be trying to protect ? And why does it need numerous
ltd companies to do it?
>You also missed of INCOP Limited.
I did say that I only looked for companies with "Nominet" in the name..
Any others to declare ?
>
>You can get the annual report & accounts from Nominet if you ask.
Thank you.
Peter Gradwell
wrote:
>>I think Nominet went on an intellectual property protection excise.
>
>What IP would they be trying to protect ?
It has brands and databases to protect.
>And why does it need numerous ltd companies to do it?
Why not? Perhaps it's an effective mechanism? Why don't you go and ask
an IP lawyer?
>>You also missed of INCOP Limited.
>
>I did say that I only looked for companies with "Nominet" in the name..
>
>Any others to declare ?
I don't know. I don't work for Nominet's legal team. I'm just
reporting those I know off. In any case, why does it need to declare
anything?
David Husband
Gradwell <pe...@gradwell.com> writes
>On 6 May 2002 05:44:18 -0500, David Husband <Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx>
>wrote:
>>>I think Nominet went on an intellectual property protection excise.
>>
>>What IP would they be trying to protect ?
>
>It has brands and databases to protect.
LOL Pull the other one...
>
>>And why does it need numerous ltd companies to do it?
>
>Why not?
Evasive answer again !
It seems very strange to me that a company "that doesn't make money"
needs to spawn numerous ltd companies that don't need to file accounts
in order to "protect its brands and databases".
Its databases will be covered by copyright -- and it is about to put its
main database into the public domain so that sounds like total BS to me.
What "brands" does it have ?
Everybody else just registers a trademark to protect a "brand".
> Perhaps it's an effective mechanism?
Doesn't look that way to me.
> Why don't you go and ask an IP lawyer?
Oh look, another evasive answer...
>
>>>You also missed of INCOP Limited.
>>
>>I did say that I only looked for companies with "Nominet" in the name..
>>
>>Any others to declare ?
>
>I don't know. I don't work for Nominet's legal team. I'm just
>reporting those I know off.
Oh, and I thought you were taking over for the day as Nominet's un-
official "mouthpiece" from Mr Bhabuta (8->)
> In any case, why does it need to declare anything?
I think there are many people interested in whether a company which it
is claimed "doesn't make money" and needs numerous ltd companies which
are not obliged to file accounts, has any overseas (or any other)
companies under its control.
I note the lack of any straight answers to perfectly reasonable and
straightforward questions around here.
I can't help feeling there is something very fishy going on.
Nominet and its associated companies does appear to be rather a
Pandora's box especially as "it doesn't make money".
The structures being revealed are typical or characteristic of an
organisation with very large profits and/or assets to "conceal".
(I am now wondering how long it will be before the personal attacks
start..)
Clive D. W. Feather
<Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> writes
>> NOMINET.44 LIMITED,
>> NOMINET.EU LIMITED,
And ?
>>21/03/02 - The subject is Limited by Guarantee therefore has no share
>>capital or shareholders. The subject is not leagally obliged to file
>>annual accounts with companies registry for public inspection.
>
>Oh so that is four Nominet limited by guarantee companies that don't
>have to file accounts for public inspection.
>
>How strange -- I wonder why ?
Why don't you ask Parliament ? They're the ones who decided that fact.
>How strange as Nominet "does not make money.."
That is a rather sloppy shorthand for the true situation, which is that
Nominet may not distribute profits to its members. If it didn't make
money it would be bankrupt.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 (NOTE CHANGE) | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Clive D. W. Feather
<Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> writes
>>>>I think Nominet went on an intellectual property protection excise.
>>>What IP would they be trying to protect ?
The name "Nominet" would seem an obvious one.
>>>And why does it need numerous ltd companies to do it?
Because that was the advice they received ?
I've been associated with one company that had to take over another one
with a similar name in order to protect our brand.
>It seems very strange to me that a company "that doesn't make money"
>needs to spawn numerous ltd companies that don't need to file accounts
>in order to "protect its brands and databases".
So why don't you write to Nominet and ask ? Or would that spoil the
fun ?
>> Perhaps it's an effective mechanism?
>Doesn't look that way to me.
Perhaps you don't know all the facts. Perhaps I don't.
>> Why don't you go and ask an IP lawyer?
>Oh look, another evasive answer...
Perhaps the other poster doesn't, so suggests you go to an authoritative
source.
>I note the lack of any straight answers to perfectly reasonable and
>straightforward questions around here.
Why don't you try asking in the right places ?
>I can't help feeling there is something very fishy going on.
Are you a Nominet member ? If not, why is it your business ?
>Nominet and its associated companies does appear to be rather a
>Pandora's box
meaning ?
>especially as "it doesn't make money".
That has never been an official description of the organisation, merely
some people's shorthand.
>The structures being revealed
"being revealed" ? They don't seem to have been hidden.
>are typical or characteristic of an
>organisation with very large profits and/or assets to "conceal".
And of many other things, such as well-run organisations working in a
non-standard environment.
>(I am now wondering how long it will be before the personal attacks
>start..)
You seem to have already started.
Richard Clayton
<Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> writes
>It seems very strange to me that a company "that doesn't make money"
>needs to spawn numerous ltd companies that don't need to file accounts
>in order to "protect its brands and databases".
Doesn't surprise me at all ... I've seen other organisations do it,
though there's often some element of longer term planning involved
(diversification, vertical restructuring etc). Of course those long term
plans may never materialise, but the names will give that option.
>Everybody else just registers a trademark to protect a "brand".
Owning the relevant company names can be far simpler than going to court
to protect your brand ... again I don't see that as surprising. LINX
continues to own a Channel Islands company to prevent a repeat of what
it saw as an attack on its brand.
In a slightly different milieu, look how many people register xxxx.co.uk
as well as xxxx.com
--
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
David Husband
Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <jOyByEAV...@p-v.bet.hx>, David Husband
><Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> writes
>>> NOMINET.44 LIMITED,
>>> NOMINET.EU LIMITED,
>>> NOMINET.ORG LIMITED,
>>
>>Oh look another Nominet limited by guarantee company...
>
>And ?
>
>>>21/03/02 - The subject is Limited by Guarantee therefore has no share
>>>capital or shareholders. The subject is not leagally obliged to file
>>>annual accounts with companies registry for public inspection.
>>
>>Oh so that is four Nominet limited by guarantee companies that don't
>>have to file accounts for public inspection.
>>
>>How strange -- I wonder why ?
>
>Why don't you ask Parliament ? They're the ones who decided that fact.
Again rather an evasive answer (it seems to me) when you know perfectly
well that the question I posed was why Nominet needed to form 4 limited
by guarantee companies that did not need to file accounts. And on the
same day as well.
Nothing to do with Parliament.
Sam Kington
>> NOMINET.44 LIMITED,
>
> Oh look another Nominet limited by guarantee company...
>
>> NOMINET.EU LIMITED,
>
> Oh look another Nominet limited by guarantee company...
>
>> NOMINET.ORG LIMITED,
>
> Oh look another Nominet limited by guarantee company...
No idea about .44, but it's likely that .eu and .org were set up for the
possibility of Nominet becoming involved in the administration of the .eu
and .org TLDs. In which case you would want separate companies to avoid
conflicts of interest.
Sam
--
UK2.NET Senior Developer
Disclaimer: Personal opinion, based on relatively little knowledge
David Husband
Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <1sVkKFAL...@p-v.bet.hx>, David Husband
><Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> writes
>>>>>I think Nominet went on an intellectual property protection excise.
>>>>What IP would they be trying to protect ?
>
>The name "Nominet" would seem an obvious one.
Register a trademark, then.
>
>>>>And why does it need numerous ltd companies to do it?
>
>Because that was the advice they received ?
Evasive answer which doesn't answer the question.
Sounds like very bad advice to me just to "protect" the name "Nominet"
and how does 4 ltd by guarantee companies achieve that end ?
Sounds like bullshit to me.
>Are you a Nominet member ? If not, why is it your business ?
Oohh, touchy !!
Perhaps you would prefer it if there was no discussion of Nominet ?
I am posting my opinions in a public discussion group in a public thread
about Nominet.
If you don't like it, tough.
>>especially as "it doesn't make money".
>
>That has never been an official description of the organisation, merely
>some people's shorthand.
Claimed the other day by Nominet's un-official "mouthpiece", Mr Bhabuta
I detect some "back-pedalling" here..
I am glad you are able to confirm that he was wrong in his assertions
(as I said he was at the time).
>>The structures being revealed
>
>"being revealed" ? They don't seem to have been hidden.
There is "hiding" and there is really "hiding".
I am sure that those matters that Nominet really want to hide (if any)
will be well hidden.
OTOH, that doesn't mean they cannot be found.
>>are typical or characteristic of an
>>organisation with very large profits and/or assets to "conceal".
>
>And of many other things, such as well-run organisations working in a
>non-standard environment.
Bullshit.
>>(I am now wondering how long it will be before the personal attacks
>>start..)
>You seem to have already started.
No, I haven't at all and I have no intention of starting any "personal
attacks".
However, I am expecting some on me going by the past behaviour of some
of those in the groups I am posting to !!
Roland Perry
<skin...@uk2.net> writes
>No idea about .44
ENUM, I guess.
--
Roland Perry
David Husband
<skin...@uk2.net> writes
>David Husband wrote:
>>> NOMINET.44 LIMITED,
>>
>> Oh look another Nominet limited by guarantee company...
>>
>>> NOMINET.EU LIMITED,
>>
>> Oh look another Nominet limited by guarantee company...
>>
>>> NOMINET.ORG LIMITED,
>>
>> Oh look another Nominet limited by guarantee company...
>
>No idea about .44, but it's likely that .eu and .org were set up for the
>possibility of Nominet becoming involved in the administration of the .eu
>and .org TLDs. In which case you would want separate companies to avoid
>conflicts of interest.
Ok, sounds reasonable. Thanks.
Avoiding conflicts of interest ?
How does that square with the companies having common directors and/or
members ?
David Husband
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
>On 6 May 2002 09:16:26 -0500, David Husband <Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx>
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>No idea about .44, but it's likely that .eu and .org were set up for the
>>>possibility of Nominet becoming involved in the administration of the .eu
>>>and .org TLDs. In which case you would want separate companies to avoid
>>>conflicts of interest.
>>
>>Ok, sounds reasonable. Thanks.
>>
>>Avoiding conflicts of interest ?
>>
>>How does that square with the companies having common directors and/or
>>members ?
>
>What conflict of interest?
The poster I was responding to suggested that separate companies were a
method of avoiding "conflicts of interest" in certain circumstances.
In my reply I suggested that if there were common directors and or
members then there was still the possibility of conflicts of interest.
I believed we were talking about conflicts of interest in general..
David Husband
Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes
Mr Gradwell, explaining why Nominet need 4 ltd companies:
>>>>>I think Nominet went on an intellectual property protection excise.
DH:
>>>>What IP would they be trying to protect ?
Clive:
>The name "Nominet" would seem an obvious one.
Which it has already protected to a very large degree in 1996 by
incorporating as Nominet UK Limited, and by registering a number of
Internet domains using the word "Nominet".
No doubt it will have registered "Nominet" as a trade mark as well.
In addition Nominet is in the extremely privileged (monopoly) position
of having it's very own TLD: "nic.uk"
How many other commercial organisations in the UK can you name that have
their own TLD ? Not many, I bet.
And it did not need to register 4 ltd companies to do any of this.
Adam D. Barratt
[..]
> In addition Nominet is in the extremely privileged (monopoly) position
> of having it's very own TLD: "nic.uk"
<pedant>
No, it isn't. That's an SLD. The TLD (a ccTLD in this case) is .uk.
</pedant>
> How many other commercial organisations in the UK can you name that have
> their own TLD ? Not many, I bet.
None; not even Nominet ;-)
Ben
- snip drivel -
>
> How many other commercial organisations in the UK can you name that have
> their own TLD ? Not many, I bet.
>
hmmm, do you want me to go on :)
Who really cares, they are a "not for profit" organisation, this does not
stop them making money or how the hell are they meant to run the
busines....get a life!
David Husband
<usen...@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes
Ok, my mistake, I stand well corrected !!
SLD then..
But how many other UK commercial organisations have their own SLD ?
Not many, I bet !!
David Husband
>Who really cares, they are a "not for profit" organisation, this does
not
>stop them making money or how the hell are they meant to run the
>business
Duh ! Exactomundo ! My point exactly, thanks.
I respectfully suggest you read my original response in sister thread
"Nominet challenged on personal data changes"
posted to alt.internet.providers.uk,uk.net,uk.legal where I said
*exactly* this.
It was others who took issue with *my* comment that Nominet *was*
"making lots of money".
Thank you and goodnight !
Sam Kington
[Nominet .eu, Nominet .org]
> Avoiding conflicts of interest ?
>
> How does that square with the companies having common directors and/or
> members ?
Common members is easy: at UK2, we sell .org as well as co.uk, org.uk,
ltd.uk and me.uk. If .eu ever makes it and isn't too much of a hassle, we'll
sell that as well. Members is pretty much the same as resellers or bulk
registrars.
Directors, well, if I remember correctly, most directors of Nominet are
directors of a number of other companies as well. Bearing in mind potential
conflicts of interests is part of the job of being a director, I understand,
in the same way as being a lawyer means that you don't take on a client if
another client of yours has an opposing interest.
The main thing, I think, is that *employees* of the different companies
don't actively collude.
Sam
--
UK2.NET Senior Developer
Disclaimer: Not an official UK2 opinion, hell no.
Sam Kington
> [I originally wrote:]
>>> No idea about .44, but it's likely that .eu and .org were set up for the
>>> possibility of Nominet becoming involved in the administration of the .eu
>>> and .org TLDs. In which case you would want separate companies to avoid
>>> conflicts of interest.
> What conflict of interest?
Arguably, .eu and .uk are in competition, as are .org.uk and .org. A company
that was selling both (or all three) would have to make decisions on which
to promote more, which could conceivably have detrimental effects for the
stakeholder community of some or all of the TLDs or SLDs.
Sam
--
UK2.NET Senior Developer
Disclaimer: It's late and I'm paraphrasing remembered nom-steer postings
Dave Reader
> In addition Nominet is in the extremely privileged (monopoly) position
> of having it's very own TLD: "nic.uk"
And I am in the extremely privelidged monopoly position of holding
undone.org.uk. You are an idiot, making spurious claims in "support" of
your argument irrespective of their pertinence to it, who appears not to
have even the most basic grasp of the subject matter at hand.
nic.uk is not a TLD. It's a SLD. It's also a widely accepted and expected
form of address for a registry.
See..
www.nic.at
www.nic.ac
www.nic.ch
www.nic.de
www.nic.fr
www.nic.li
www.nic.nl
www.nic.tm
..etc..
Perhaps if you knew what the TLA "NIC" meant, you would understand.
d.
Dave Reader
> But how many other UK commercial organisations have their own SLD ?
> Not many, I bet !!
Loads of them. To pick one at random, channel4.com.
d.
David Husband
writes
> You are an idiot, making spurious claims in "support" of
>your argument irrespective of their pertinence to it, who appears not to
>have even the most basic grasp of the subject matter at hand.
Jeez, get a grip ! Don't blow a gasket ! LOL
(Anyway, I thought that was what people did on usenet !!)
>nic.uk is not a TLD. It's a SLD.
I have already held my hand up to making a minor "slip-of-the-tongue"
mistake on that one. Please shoot me !! Jeez !!
> It's also a widely accepted and expected
>form of address for a registry.
Yes, I know that...
>Perhaps if you knew what the TLA "NIC" meant, you would understand.
Ok, Mr Perfect, please tell me what NIC stands for... (not that I don't
know what it stands for, but I must have some of your superior
knowledge.. I must hear it from the mouth of the master...)
I didn't express myself too well when I made the original remarks for
which I humbly apologise and grovel at your feet...
Humbly begging your permission and craving your indulgence, I'll try
again, sir:
Nominet are in the commercially privileged position of having their own
SLD in the .uk namespace alongside such others as .gov.uk, .police.uk,
.ac.uk etc.
I am not aware of many other commercial organisations having similar SLD
names in the .uk namespace.
Leo Vegoda
Re: how much money is nominet making?:
[...]
> Humbly begging your permission and craving your indulgence, I'll try
> again, sir:
>
> Nominet are in the commercially privileged position of having their own
> SLD in the .uk namespace alongside such others as .gov.uk, .police.uk,
> .ac.uk etc.
>
> I am not aware of many other commercial organisations having similar SLD
> names in the .uk namespace.
Thing is that Nominet isn't a commercial organisation, really.
Anyhow, Nominet publicise the nominet.org.uk domain. The nic.uk
domain is there for the convenience of those who have no idea who
it is that runs the .uk namespace. My personal opinion is that
all ccTLD registries should have a nic.ccTLD domain. It just makes
things easier for people who need to register a domain in that
ccTLD and don't know who to contact.
Regards,
-leo
Dave Reader
> Nominet are in the commercially privileged position of having their own
> SLD in the .uk namespace alongside such others as .gov.uk, .police.uk,
> .ac.uk etc.
> I am not aware of many other commercial organisations having similar SLD
> names in the .uk namespace.
I still cannot see how this has any pertinence whatsoever to "how much
money is nominet making?". Until you put forward a well reasoned and
coherent explanation, I can see no value or merit in your continued
outbursts.
d.
David Husband
<l...@news.lurve.org> writes
>Anyhow, Nominet publicise the nominet.org.uk domain. The nic.uk
>domain is there for the convenience of those who have no idea who
>it is that runs the .uk namespace.
Ok. Sounds a sensible thing to do...
>My personal opinion is that
>all ccTLD registries should have a nic.ccTLD domain. It just makes
>things easier for people who need to register a domain in that
>ccTLD and don't know who to contact.
Yes I agree, thanks.
And to that end I find this web page very useful:
http://www.norid.no/domreg.html
Matthew Thompson
Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <B8FC44D2.1190D%skin...@uk2.net>, Sam Kington
> <skin...@uk2.net> writes
>
>> No idea about .44
> ENUM, I guess.
Oh yeah. How is ENUM progressing btw?
M@t :o)
Roland Perry
<ma...@actuality.co.uk> writes
>How is ENUM progressing btw?
Waiting for ITU to agree that RIPE NCC will administer the applications
from individual countries (but ITU to decide who gets the job).
--
Roland Perry | tel: +44 20 7645 3505 | rol...@linx.org
Director of Public Policy | fax: +44 20 7645 3529 | http://www.linx.net
London Internet Exchange | mbl: +44 7909 68 0005 | /contact/roland
Dave Reader
> On 7 May 2002 10:42:04 GMT, Dave Reader <da...@undone.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> But how many other UK commercial organisations have their own SLD ?
>>> Not many, I bet !!
> We're talking about UK specific domains. Get a life, and stop dodging
> the real issue Mr Duck and Dive and Weave.
Learn to attribute correctly.
I did not write what you have attributed to me, above.
d.
David Husband
<tg...@microvst.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 7 May 2002 17:05:53 +0000 (UTC), horace rumpole <n...@spam.please>
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> But how many other UK commercial organisations have their own SLD ?
>>>> Not many, I bet !!
>>
>> We're talking about UK specific domains. Get a life, and stop dodging
>> the real issue Mr Duck and Dive and Weave.
>
>Are you calling the writer of those words, David Husband, evasive?
>
>:-)
>
>Tony
Ho, ho
Twice recently in two different threads I have asked you what your
problem is with me (as you clearly do have some sort of problem..) and
twice you have chosen to ignore my requests.
And you call me evasive ?
(And I am sure Horace will clarify his remarks..)
NeilH
"horace rumpole" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
news:eaegdusbb1ildi53r...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 May 2002 18:29:03 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
> <tg...@microvst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 7 May 2002 17:05:53 +0000 (UTC), horace rumpole <n...@spam.please>
> >
> >>>
> >>>> But how many other UK commercial organisations have their own SLD ?
> >>>> Not many, I bet !!
> >>
> >> the real issue Mr Duck and Dive and Weave.
> >
> >Are you calling the writer of those words, David Husband, evasive?
>
What you are doing though is using the phrase "get a life" quite a lot. This
is frequently used by people such as yourself, who are indeed the real ones
who ought to be taking their own advice. Plus it does show your quite
obvious lack of vocabulary, repeating the same childish phrase over and over
when challenged.
My thoughts are that you are not actually Horace Rumpole , but are in fact
Billy Nomates from the viz comic.
NH (looking forward to my own "get a life" reply, unless you happen to fall
over a dictionary on the way to meeting the non existant mate at the non
existant pub)
Mark Castle
> Not many, I bet !!
Not strictly "commercial" but "organisations" nevertheless.
Interesting how they don't showup on a whois. Wonder how many more there
are?
Also - interesting how the rules state....
"All second level names of .uk are banned from being used as third level
names. e.g. nhs.co.uk would be banned as it is a second level name."
....but that icnet.co.uk is registered to someone.
Also i believe that ARPA.CO.UK and MIL.CO.UK fall foul of the following
rule....
"All top level domains are banned from being used as third level names. e.g.
net.org.uk and org.co.uk are not allowed."
.... i guess that rule needs rewriting in light of the new TLD's (otherwise
BIZ.CO.UK for example is technically illegal.).
I also find it odd how the owner of the only (or is it) single letter .co.uk
dom (X.CO.UK) doesn't even use it.
Grin - I'm going to ask for mark.uk ;-)
Oh well.
Cheers
Mark Castle
http://www.securahosting.com
Sam Kington
[...]
> I also find it odd how the owner of the only (or is it) single letter .co.uk
> dom (X.CO.UK) doesn't even use it.
I believe x.co.uk, along with bt.co.uk and others, was assigned *before* the
Nominet rules came into force. Whether it is used as a web site is neither
here nor there.
Mark Castle
you would have thought that whoever has it would use it.
Cheers - Mark
"Sam Kington" <skin...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:B8FE3487.11B9E%skin...@uk2.net...
David Husband
<markM...@securahosting.com> writes
>I also find it odd how the owner of the only (or is it) single letter .co.uk
>dom (X.CO.UK) doesn't even use it.
>
>Grin - I'm going to ask for mark.uk ;-)
They would actually be "premium" domains in the sense that I would have
thought that many would pay "loads-a-money" for that genre of domain
name.
Leo Vegoda
Re: how much money is nominet making?:
> >How is ENUM progressing btw?
>
> Waiting for ITU to agree that RIPE NCC will administer the applications
> from individual countries (but ITU to decide who gets the job).
But 44 (the UK) has been delegated:
; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> @ns.ripe.net 4.4.e164.arpa ns
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; 4.4.e164.arpa, type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
4.4.e164.arpa. 4H IN NS ns1.4.4.e164.arpa.
4.4.e164.arpa. 4H IN NS ns2.4.4.e164.arpa.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.4.4.e164.arpa. 4H IN A 198.133.199.1
ns2.4.4.e164.arpa. 4H IN A 198.133.199.2
;; Total query time: 1 msec
;; FROM: toybox to SERVER: ns.ripe.net 193.0.0.193
;; WHEN: Wed May 8 12:03:44 2002
;; MSG SIZE sent: 31 rcvd: 99
Regards,
-leo
Roland Perry
<l...@news.lurve.org> writes
>> >How is ENUM progressing btw?
>>
>> Waiting for ITU to agree that RIPE NCC will administer the applications
>> from individual countries (but ITU to decide who gets the job).
>
>But 44 (the UK) has been delegated:
I believe there have been some issues with a "false start" in the ITU's
agreement mentioned above. Not that anyone believes the outcome will
differ.
Clive D. W. Feather
<markM...@securahosting.com> writes
>are?
aea-technology.uk aeatech.uk AEA Technology plc
british-library.uk bl.uk British Library
ccta.uk CCTA
icnet.uk Imperial Cancer Research Fund
joint-european-torus.uk jet.uk Joint European Torus Joint Undertaking
national-engineering-laboratory.uk nel.uk National Engineering
Laboratory
national-library-scotland.uk nls.uk National Library of Scotland
parliament.uk UK Parliament
scot-off.uk Scottish Office
>Also - interesting how the rules state....
>
>"All second level names of .uk are banned from being used as third level
>names. e.g. nhs.co.uk would be banned as it is a second level name."
You seem to have missed the bit about names registered before a rule
comes into effect.
>I also find it odd how the owner of the only (or is it) single letter .co.uk
>dom (X.CO.UK) doesn't even use it.
How do you know they don't ? Have you done a full zone transfer ?
>Grin - I'm going to ask for mark.uk ;-)
See the Nominet SLD policy. You'll need to present a formal application
and, if you want to run it yourself, 10,000 pounds.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 (NOTE CHANGE) | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Clive D. W. Feather
<Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> writes
>>>>>>I think Nominet went on an intellectual property protection excise.
That might not suffice. Or it may have been seen worthwhile registering
the companies anyway. Even if the latter was not necessary, it doesn't
make it bad.
>Sounds like bullshit to me.
Sounds like you don't know the full facts to me.
>>Are you a Nominet member ? If not, why is it your business ?
>Oohh, touchy !!
No, it was a genuine question.
>I am posting my opinions in a public discussion group in a public thread
>about Nominet.
Yes, but you are also demanding answers to your questions.
>If you don't like it, tough.
And if you want answers, you must be prepared to justify your
questioning.
>>>especially as "it doesn't make money".
>>That has never been an official description of the organisation, merely
>>some people's shorthand.
>Claimed the other day by Nominet's un-official "mouthpiece", Mr Bhabuta
>I detect some "back-pedalling" here..
No, you detect some clarification.
>>>are typical or characteristic of an
>>>organisation with very large profits and/or assets to "conceal".
>>And of many other things, such as well-run organisations working in a
>>non-standard environment.
>Bullshit.
There's nothing like a well-reasoned refutation. And that's ....
>>>(I am now wondering how long it will be before the personal attacks
>>>start..)
>>You seem to have already started.
>No, I haven't at all and I have no intention of starting any "personal
>attacks".
"mouthpiece" isn't meant as a personal attack ? Implications that
certain other people are lying isn't a personal attack ?
Clive D. W. Feather
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
>>>And why does it need numerous ltd companies to do it?
>>
>>Why not? Perhaps it's an effective mechanism? Why don't you go and ask
>>an IP lawyer?
>
>I doubt very much that it is effective in any way.
And your basis for that claim is ? Have you *asked* an IP lawyer ?
>P.S. "Nominet is not a governing or regulatory body, but provides a
>public service for the .uk namespace on behalf of the Internet
>community." from http://www.nic.uk/nominet/about.html
>
>How about heeding Joe Public for a change?
Concerning what ?
Clive D. W. Feather
<Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> writes
>>No idea about .44, but it's likely that .eu and .org were set up for the
>>possibility of Nominet becoming involved in the administration of the .eu
>>and .org TLDs. In which case you would want separate companies to avoid
>>conflicts of interest.
>
>
>Avoiding conflicts of interest ?
>
>How does that square with the companies having common directors and/or
>members ?
Because it still avoids issues of hidden cross-subsidy, or issues of
whether actions are in the best interest of A or B. If one is acting
*as* a director of company A, then one has to act in A's interest, no
matter how it affects B.
And the separate companies mean separate accounting, which is a good
thing.
Mark Castle
> british-library.uk bl.uk British Library
> ccta.uk CCTA
> icnet.uk Imperial Cancer Research Fund
> joint-european-torus.uk jet.uk Joint European Torus Joint Undertaking
> national-engineering-laboratory.uk nel.uk National Engineering
> Laboratory
> national-library-scotland.uk nls.uk National Library of Scotland
> parliament.uk UK Parliament
> scot-off.uk Scottish Office
Hadn't realised there were so many. Any reason why Nominet omits them from
a Whois? Is that the full list?
>>Also - interesting how the rules state....
>>
>>"All second level names of .uk are banned from being used as third level
>>names. e.g. nhs.co.uk would be banned as it is a second level name."
>
>You seem to have missed the bit about names registered before a rule
>comes into effect.
I only said it was interesting. But point taken.
>
> >I also find it odd how the owner of the only (or is it) single letter
.co.uk
> >dom (X.CO.UK) doesn't even use it.
>
> How do you know they don't ? Have you done a full zone transfer ?
Was just initially relying on the Nominet Whois saying (Unable to validate
IP) - guess that's not a reliable indicator of a domain not working. On
looking at the zone though got a query refused on a zone transfer (which is
fair enough) and couldn't get an SOA (Demon Tools-"badly administered
domains may not have an SOA record, however") or any MX records or the
"usual" (www, ftp etc) A records, but i guess that doesn't mean they are not
using it. If they are, then they are rather covert with it. Each to their
own. Come to think of it, covert, SCOVERT.SCO.COM
Hmmm. X.desktop® is a registered trademark of IXI Ltd
As you were a founder of IXI Ltd Clive, i'm sure you wouldn't tell us what
the domain is used for even if you knew.
>
> >Grin - I'm going to ask for mark.uk ;-)
>
> See the Nominet SLD policy. You'll need to present a formal application
> and, if you want to run it yourself, 10,000 pounds.
I guess you didn't realise that "Grin - " and ";-)" meant i was not entirely
serious? But then, you probably did. Anyway, I'd happily spend 10,000 GBP
resurrecting the .gb ccTDL though ;-).
All the Best - Mark
David Husband
Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes
DH:
>>No, I haven't at all and I have no intention of starting any "personal
>>attacks".
>
>"mouthpiece" isn't meant as a personal attack ? Implications that
>certain other people are lying isn't a personal attack ?
As I thought my robust remarks might be misinterpreted or misunderstood
by persons such as yourself, I commented in a sister thread:
Message-ID: <ihgxZAAf...@p-v.bet.hx>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 16:27:27 +0100
From: David Husband <Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx>
Newsgroups: alt.internet.providers.uk,uk.net,uk.legal
Subject: Re: "Nominet challenged on personal data changes"
"And on this subject, I have mentioned Mr Bhabuta's name a number of
times but I would like to make it clear that I do not have any issue
with Mr Bhabuta, who I am sure is exactly as he comes across, i.e. a
thoroughly pleasant, knowledgeable and helpful person. I apologise if I
have given any contrary impression, that is certainly not my intention."
Note my apology. And the sentiments I expressed above apply to any other
persons as well. Even Mr Gold. (8->)
Clive D. W. Feather
<Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> writes
>>>No, I haven't at all and I have no intention of starting any "personal
>>>attacks".
>>
>>"mouthpiece" isn't meant as a personal attack ? Implications that
>>certain other people are lying isn't a personal attack ?
>
>As I thought my robust remarks might be misinterpreted or misunderstood
>by persons such as yourself, I commented in a sister thread:
This hasn't appeared in uk.net.regulation. Thank you for re-posting it.
Clive D. W. Feather
<Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> writes
>>>>21/03/02 - The subject is Limited by Guarantee therefore has no share
>>>>capital or shareholders. The subject is not leagally obliged to file
>>>>annual accounts with companies registry for public inspection.
>>>Oh so that is four Nominet limited by guarantee companies that don't
>>>have to file accounts for public inspection.
>>>How strange -- I wonder why ?
>>Why don't you ask Parliament ? They're the ones who decided that fact.
>Again rather an evasive answer (it seems to me) when you know perfectly
>well that the question I posed was why Nominet needed to form 4 limited
>by guarantee companies that did not need to file accounts. And on the
>same day as well.
No, you seem to have confused at least three questions:
(1) Why do Nominet need four companies ?
(2) Why are they CLGs ?
(3) Why don't they have to file accounts ?
The answer to (3) is "Because Parliament said so".
The answer to (2) is probably "Because they seemed to be the most
appropriate vehicle for the purpose" and, before you say it, I don't
mean that the purpose is to hide things in the non-public accounts.
I don't offhand know the answer to (1), but have you actually tried
*asking* Nominet rather than ranting here ?
Clive D. W. Feather
Castle <markM...@securahosting.com> writes[...]
>Hadn't realised there were so many. Any reason why Nominet omits them from
>a Whois?
I suspect that it's because the whois is built automatically from a
database, and these SLDs aren't in that database (being historical
anomolies).
>Is that the full list?
Those are all the SLDs belonging to individual organisations.
Then there are:
Nominet-managed domains
co.uk Commercial entities and purposes
ltd.uk Private limited companies
me.uk Personal names
net.uk Internet Service Providers' infrastructure
nic.uk Nominet internal purposes
org.uk Not-for-profit entities
orgn.uk Closed to new entries
plc.uk Public limited companies
sch.uk Schools
SLDs administered by third-party registrars as trustees.
ac.uk Higher and further education and research institutions
gov.uk National, regional, and local government bodies and
agencies
govt.uk Obsolete
mod.uk Military and related purposes
nhs.uk National Health Service
police.uk Police forces
>> >I also find it odd how the owner of the only (or is it) single letter
>.co.uk
>> >dom (X.CO.UK) doesn't even use it.
>Come to think of it, covert, SCOVERT.SCO.COM
Also SCOCAINE, APRISCOT, and a hundred other names. Including my former
own machine SCONE.SCO.COM.
>Hmmm. X.desktop® is a registered trademark of IXI Ltd
>As you were a founder of IXI Ltd Clive, i'm sure you wouldn't tell us what
>the domain is used for even if you knew.
Founder, yes, but I ceased all connection except as a minority
shareholder in 1995, and even that by 1999.
>> >Grin - I'm going to ask for mark.uk ;-)
>> See the Nominet SLD policy. You'll need to present a formal application
>> and, if you want to run it yourself, 10,000 pounds.
>I guess you didn't realise that "Grin - " and ";-)" meant i was not entirely
>serious? But then, you probably did.
Of course. But I thought I'd cast the hook anyway.
>Anyway, I'd happily spend 10,000 GBP
>resurrecting the .gb ccTDL though ;-).
Smiley or not, that is *NOT* going to happen.