"Nominet challenged on personal data changes"
James Coupe
In message <3ccf03f3...@news.ntlworld.com>, Philomena
<nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid> writes:
>"Opponents to Nominet UK's decision to publish contact details of
>people who own .uk domain names have set up a Web site to voice their
>protest.
Out of interest, it was my understanding that consent had to be
*explicitly* given in order to facilitate publishing personal data and
that consent could not be implied. (Reversing the standard "please tick
the box to opt *out*" on many forms.)
Random Person has never given explicit permission to Nominet to allow
that, it's just been a change in T&Cs.
What's to stop my bank changing the T&Cs on me and making my personal
data available to all and sundry even if, when I joined, they said they
wouldn't?
Specifically, Principle 2 of DPA1998:
2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified
and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner
incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
I am unsure as to how the data that Nominet have about any person was
*ever* obtained for the purpose of displaying in WHOIS output.
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Peter Gradwell
wrote:
>Random Person has never given explicit permission to Nominet to allow
>that, it's just been a change in T&Cs.
No, I don't think it's a change in T&Cs. The provision has, I think,
always been there. It's just that there is a change in policy, so now
Nominet is going to display the data, in accordance with the terms and
conditions.
I agree, if Nominet changed the rules halfway through, that would be
wrong, but they're not. They are just excercising them.
peter
--
peter gradwell. gradwell dot com Ltd. http://www.gradwell.com/
engineering & hosting services for email, web and usenet
James Coupe
Gradwell <pe...@gradwell.com> writes:
>On Wed, 1 May 2002 12:16:21 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
>wrote:
>>Random Person has never given explicit permission to Nominet to allow
>>that, it's just been a change in T&Cs.
>
>No, I don't think it's a change in T&Cs. The provision has, I think,
>always been there. It's just that there is a change in policy, so now
>Nominet is going to display the data, in accordance with the terms and
>conditions.
So why, when I sign up with my bank etc., do I still have to tick a box
saying that I *want* to receive offers from 3rd parties, now? They
could just put that in the contract, if they wanted.
Jason Clifford
> So why, when I sign up with my bank etc., do I still have to tick a box
> saying that I *want* to receive offers from 3rd parties, now? They
> could just put that in the contract, if they wanted.
Because your bank want to sell your details.
Nominet is not proposing to do that. They are merely going to implement
the system as they are contracted to under the T&C.
If you don't want your personal details published either don't register a
domain or use a nominee service for the contact details.
Jason Clifford
James Coupe
Jason Clifford <ja...@uklinux.net> writes:
>On Wed, 1 May 2002, James Coupe wrote:
>> So why, when I sign up with my bank etc., do I still have to tick a box
>> saying that I *want* to receive offers from 3rd parties, now? They
>> could just put that in the contract, if they wanted.
>
>Because your bank want to sell your details.
>
>Nominet is not proposing to do that.
The details would be available to all and sundry, just as easily as any
bank selling them.
>They are merely going to implement
>the system as they are contracted to under the T&C.
Hence the point that was made above - why do banks etc., put a clause
about distributing personal data into a separate question, when Nominet
don't?
I am assuming that multi-million pound institutions like banks have
looked this one up, and wouldn't be putting those separate tick-box
clauses in there if they didn't have to.
Philomena
wrote:
>On Wed, 1 May 2002, James Coupe wrote:
>
>> So why, when I sign up with my bank etc., do I still have to tick a box
>> saying that I *want* to receive offers from 3rd parties, now? They
>> could just put that in the contract, if they wanted.
>
>Because your bank want to sell your details.
>
>Nominet is not proposing to do that.
They are proposing to give them away though.
>If you don't want your personal details published either don't register a
>domain or use a nominee service for the contact details.
Though banks can't get away with saying "If you don't want your
details passed on to others, either don't have a bank account or pay
somebody to let you use their contact details."
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> Hence the point that was made above - why do banks etc., put a clause
> about distributing personal data into a separate question, when Nominet
> don't?
Those banks etc *SELL* your date to mailing lists, etc etc
Nominet *DON'T*
--
Denesh Bhabuta
Cyberstrider Limited - www.cyberstrider.net
Aexiomus Limited - www.aexiomus.net
Nominet PAB Member ; co-Chair RIPE LIR-WG
James Coupe
>In alt.internet.providers.uk James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>> Hence the point that was made above - why do banks etc., put a clause
>> about distributing personal data into a separate question, when Nominet
>> don't?
>
>Those banks etc *SELL* your date to mailing lists, etc etc
>
>Nominet *DON'T*
So if I sell it for 1p to some mass marketers, I have to ask, but if I
make it available to all mass-marketers everywhere, I don't?
That sounds sensible.
NeilH
"Philomena" <nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ccfec62...@news.ntlworld.com...
I take it from your ever more increasing tiresome threads that you have
opted out of voting rights and had your name expunged from the council
registry as well ?
N
Tony Bryer
> Out of interest, it was my understanding that consent had to be
> *explicitly* given in order to facilitate publishing personal data and
> that consent could not be implied.
If so, where does that leave the likes of 192.com
--
Tony Bryer
Barry Dorrans
"NeilH" <n...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aaotjn$l73$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> I take it from your ever more increasing tiresome threads that you have
> opted out of voting rights and had your name expunged from the council
> registry as well ?
That justification is interesting. Didn't someone late last year win the
right to not have his voting records/council records resold?
Philomena
wrote:
>
>I take it from your ever more increasing tiresome threads that you have
>opted out of voting rights and had your name expunged from the council
>registry as well ?
Why don't you just use your killfile if you aren't interested?
rp
news:3ccfec62...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
> details passed on to others, either don't have a bank account or pay
> somebody to let you use their contact details."
>
I think its irrelevant what banks do or don't do. Nominet has made
the decision and they will now have to ensure that the maximum
number of registrants are aware of that decision. The test will be
in precisely how they implement it.
Its good that there is debate because by airing the issues
individuals get the opportunity to formulate plans for
dealing with the new regime.
The argument for not publishing addresses is very valid and I'm
sure that Nominet is aware of this.
The Data Protection Act 1998 and the office of the Information
Commissioner illustrates how Government go about regulation:
1. Determining if one needs to 'notify' is achieved by applying
a self-assessment test under the threat of criminal prosecution.
2. An annual fee of £35 is required if one decides that it is better
to 'play safe' and notify rather than risk prosecution.
3. Once you've 'notified' your full details are entered into a
publically available database.
I'm sure that no-one would want that sort of regime to be
applied to Internet domain names. Nominet has a good
record of defending individual's rights. see www.fsa.co.uk
Philomena
Philomena
>"Philomena" <nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3ccfec62...@news.ntlworld.com...
>>
>> Though banks can't get away with saying "If you don't want your
>> details passed on to others, either don't have a bank account or pay
>> somebody to let you use their contact details."
>>
>
>I think its irrelevant what banks do or don't do.
They're governed by the same laws as Nominet, unless I'm mistaken?
[..]
>The Data Protection Act 1998 and the office of the Information
>Commissioner illustrates how Government go about regulation:
>
>1. Determining if one needs to 'notify' is achieved by applying
>a self-assessment test under the threat of criminal prosecution.
>
>2. An annual fee of £35 is required if one decides that it is better
>to 'play safe' and notify rather than risk prosecution.
>
>3. Once you've 'notified' your full details are entered into a
>publically available database.
>
>I'm sure that no-one would want that sort of regime to be
>applied to Internet domain names.
I don't know, because I don't understand who is notifying whom of what
in the above. Could you explain please?
>Nominet has a good
>record of defending individual's rights. see www.fsa.co.uk
Perhaps they (they who run Nominet) felt genuinely neutral over that
domain dispute and were able to judge objectively. They clearly don't
feel neutral over the publication of addresses in whois.
Tim ...
"Philomena" <nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Why don't you just use your killfile if you aren't interested?
perhaps you could be courteous enough to explain here exactly what *your*
problem is with regard the release of information as to who owns a
particular domain?
I'll make no apology for asking you the questions .... "what are you trying
to hide?" and "what exactly are you 'afraid' of?"
Jason Clifford
> >Because your bank want to sell your details.
> >
> >Nominet is not proposing to do that.
>
> The details would be available to all and sundry, just as easily as any
> bank selling them.
The bank is asking for your permission to sell your details. They may not
do so otherwise. Nominet is NOT selling your details. They are fulfilling
a contractual obligation that you have agreed to.
Jason Clifford
Denis Mcmahon
><uk.net.regulation added>
uk.net trimmed - inappropriate if uk.net.regulation included!
>Out of interest, it was my understanding that consent had to be
>*explicitly* given in order to facilitate publishing personal data and
>that consent could not be implied. (Reversing the standard "please tick
>the box to opt *out*" on many forms.)
Firstly, you need to understand the basic logic of the Data Protection
Act:
Anyone can do whatever they like with personal data as long as they
tell the IC what they intend to do first.
>Random Person has never given explicit permission to Nominet to allow
>that, it's just been a change in T&Cs.
Unfortunately it seems not, as apparently Nominet T&Cs have always
allowed for publishing, as has their DPA notification to the IC.
It's actually a change in the implementation, not the T&Cs.
>What's to stop my bank changing the T&Cs on me and making my personal
>data available to all and sundry even if, when I joined, they said they
>wouldn't?
Very little if they tell the IC first that it is their intention to do
so.
>Specifically, Principle 2 of DPA1998:
>
> 2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified
>and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner
>incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
>
>I am unsure as to how the data that Nominet have about any person was
>*ever* obtained for the purpose of displaying in WHOIS output.
Apparently the T&Cs have always said that it was for that purpose, and
the DPA Notification has always allowed publishing of it.
Rgds
Denis
--
To Reply: Trim quote, delete sigsep & sig, add reply at end
Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk
Entry conditions for killfile include top-post, advert, bin
I block /16 of UC/BE relays, posts > 100 lines not retrieved
rp
> On Wed, 1 May 2002 17:00:27 +0100, "rp" <r...@xx.xx> wrote:
> >The Data Protection Act 1998 and the office of the Information
> >Commissioner illustrates how Government go about regulation:
> >
> >1. Determining if one needs to 'notify' is achieved by applying
> >a self-assessment test under the threat of criminal prosecution.
> >
> >2. An annual fee of £35 is required if one decides that it is better
> >to 'play safe' and notify rather than risk prosecution.
> >
> >3. Once you've 'notified' your full details are entered into a
> >publically available database.
> >
> >I'm sure that no-one would want that sort of regime to be
> >applied to Internet domain names.
>
> I don't know, because I don't understand who is notifying whom of what
> in the above. Could you explain please?
>
An explanation is at http://www.dpr.gov.uk/ and the office of
the Information Commissioner is at
http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk
You can search for all registrations by postcode:
http://www.dpr.gov.uk/search.html
My personal opinion is that one of the principle purposes of
'government' is to regulate and to provide employment for
regulators. Ordinary people (taxpayers?) are incapable of
regulating themselves so the 'nanny' state is justified. I
suspect that the Government would love to get their hands
on Nominet in order to create yet another layer of beauracracy.
> >Nominet has a good
> >record of defending individual's rights. see www.fsa.co.uk
>
> Perhaps they (they who run Nominet) felt genuinely neutral over that
> domain dispute and were able to judge objectively. They clearly don't
> feel neutral over the publication of addresses in whois.
>
We may not know what pressure has been brought to bear on
the directors of Nominet to persuade them to publish addresses.
Philomena
>"Philomena" <nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3cd0165c...@news.ntlworld.com...
[..]
>> >I'm sure that no-one would want that sort of regime to be
>> >applied to Internet domain names.
>>
>> I don't know, because I don't understand who is notifying whom of what
>> in the above. Could you explain please?
>
>An explanation is at http://www.dpr.gov.uk/ and the office of
>the Information Commissioner is at
>http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk
>
>You can search for all registrations by postcode:
>http://www.dpr.gov.uk/search.html
I can't at all see why it would be a problem for Nominet to register
as a data controller and pay £35 a year.
I think I've missed your point. Sorry.
>> >Nominet has a good
>> >record of defending individual's rights. see www.fsa.co.uk
>>
>> Perhaps they (they who run Nominet) felt genuinely neutral over that
>> domain dispute and were able to judge objectively. They clearly don't
>> feel neutral over the publication of addresses in whois.
>
>We may not know what pressure has been brought to bear on
>the directors of Nominet to persuade them to publish addresses.
However as it's our addresses they're intending to publish, we surely
_ought_ to know what pressure if any has been brought to bear on
Nominet to do it. Hints keep being dropped, but clarification cometh
there none.
Denis Mcmahon
uk.net.regulation
nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid (Philomena) wrote:
>I can't at all see why it would be a problem for Nominet to register
>as a data controller and pay £35 a year.
Eh? Nominet is registered with the DPA, the Nominet DPA notification
is published on the IC website, and has been discussed in some detail
in here.
Denesh and myself had significant discussion about the wording of the
Notification, including the fact that it is out of date and needs to
be updated to use the new classifications for data types, sources,
uses etc.
However, the current DPA Notification as filed by Nominet for the
purpose of operating the database of domain owners allows them to
publish domain owners personal data, including but not limited to name
and address, telephone number, fax number and email address.
Philomena
<den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Note - uk.net trimmed, not a valid x-post between uk.net and
>uk.net.regulation
>
>nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid (Philomena) wrote:
>
>>I can't at all see why it would be a problem for Nominet to register
>>as a data controller and pay £35 a year.
>
>Eh? Nominet is registered with the DPA, the Nominet DPA notification
>is published on the IC website, and has been discussed in some detail
>in here.
I did say I thought I was missing rp's point. I still am.
rp
"Philomena" <nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> I can't at all see why it would be a problem for Nominet to register
> as a data controller and pay £35 a year.
>
Nominet are, of course, already registered...... that's why they
are able to publish personal data. See Denis McMahon's post.
> I think I've missed your point. Sorry.
>
The point is, IMO, that the Government wants to get everyone
regulated. Anyone who thinks that they *might* be processing
personal data can voluntarily 'notify' the IC. Failure to notify
when one should have done is a criminal offence.
People in business, like Denesh, have to ask themselves if they
believe they should be registered. They may feel that acting as the
accommodation address for domain name holders constitutes
processing personal data.
By forcing Nominet to publish addresses, the Government might
believe that business people providing accommodation addresses
will feel obliged to 'notify' the IC. There is currently a campaign
running to persuade more 'data controllers' to notify.
> >We may not know what pressure has been brought to bear on
> >the directors of Nominet to persuade them to publish addresses.
>
> However as it's our addresses they're intending to publish, we surely
> _ought_ to know what pressure if any has been brought to bear on
> Nominet to do it. Hints keep being dropped, but clarification cometh
> there none.
>
Government does not like to be seen to be initiating anything
unpalatable. Better to make the rules and then *encourage*
the public to ask themselves if they believe they are following
them. e.g. self-assessment at the DPR.
Do some postcode searches at:
http://www.dpr.gov.uk/search.html
I'm sure that there should be many more registrations than
can be found.
Philomena
>
>"Philomena" <nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3cd0488a...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
>> I think I've missed your point. Sorry.
>>
>
>The point is, IMO, that the Government wants to get everyone
>regulated.
They can start with Nominet, as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks for the explanation of what you meant. I was indeed missing
your point entirely.
Stuart Millington
>People in business, like Denesh, have to ask themselves if they
>believe they should be registered. They may feel that acting as the
>accommodation address for domain name holders constitutes
>processing personal data.
[Not aimed at Denesh...] Any company that offers services to the
general public must/should be registered AIUI - as they hold data that
can identify individual's details or at the very least are 99% likely
to.[1]
>By forcing Nominet to publish addresses, the Government might
>believe that business people providing accommodation addresses
>will feel obliged to 'notify' the IC. There is currently a campaign
>running to persuade more 'data controllers' to notify.
Forcing companies to publish customer's personal details seems a
very strange way of encouraging the companies to register. For a
start, the main penalty (lack of privacy) appears to be placed with
the customer. The company may get "done over" later, after the
customer has already lost their privacy.
FWIW I have never liked the idea of publishing "home" user's postal
addresses with domain name details (some thief thinks "They have a
domain name, so they must have a computer", etc.). The "American Way"
is not always the best way - despite what citizens of the USA, which
is only a part of the American continent, say :(
>Government does not like to be seen to be initiating anything
>unpalatable. Better to make the rules and then *encourage*
>the public to ask themselves if they believe they are following
>them. e.g. self-assessment at the DPR.
Unless I've got this wrong, this whole thing seems to be the wrong
way around - Companies (or just Nominet?) that hold personal data are
forced to publish it to the world, therefore they are more likely to
register as a data controller? It may be cheaper than paying people to
check that companies are not violating DPA regulations, but IMHO it is
the wrong way to do it.
Does the DPR have the funding to follow-up complaints anyway?
[1] I know that 10Quid (per everything), Clicknames & Nominet have my
home name & address details. I can only assume that all three are
registered.[2]
[2] My main (longer-term) concern is than Nominet *NOT* do an NSI and
sell their customer lists to UCE/UBE merchants. I have not studied the
new T&C's in enough detail to be certain that there is no loophole
that allows this. [3]
[3] I do not like the new T&C's which, strongly, suggest/state that
only a director can sign a domain form for a limited company. Most
directors won't know what a domain is. The rest would blindly sign the
form without reading it, provided their PA had "approved" it. Managers
and other _appointed_ officials can enter into legally binding
agreements for companies, so why can't they sign domain forms?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington -
- mailto:ph...@dsv1.co.uk http://www.z-add.co.uk/ -
- *ALL* HTML e-mail rejected -
Richard Clayton
Millington <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> writes
>Any company that offers services to the
>general public must/should be registered AIUI - as they hold data that
>can identify individual's details or at the very least are 99% likely
>to.[1]
why not try the self-assessment exercise
http://www.dpr.gov.uk/downloads/selfassess.pdf
paying attention to page 14 - which discusses the exemption for
"accounts and records". You might revise this advice.
> FWIW I have never liked the idea of publishing "home" user's postal
>addresses with domain name details (some thief thinks "They have a
>domain name, so they must have a computer", etc.).
given the current level of penetration of computers into the general
population, you'll find that examining the outside of the house is more
likely to indicate where machines are going to be found
>[1] I know that 10Quid (per everything), Clicknames & Nominet have my
>home name & address details. I can only assume that all three are
>registered.[2]
it really rather depends what they're doing with the data
--
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
rp
news:sqp0dusl751l40r27...@4ax.com...
>
> Forcing companies to publish customer's personal details seems a
> very strange way of encouraging the companies to register. For a
> start, the main penalty (lack of privacy) appears to be placed with
> the customer. The company may get "done over" later, after the
> customer has already lost their privacy.
>
I did say that it was only my opinion. Anyway, its not only
companies that need to consider their position but anyone
who processes personal data. The self assessment test at
the DPR is quite comprehensive.
>
> Unless I've got this wrong, this whole thing seems to be the wrong
> way around - Companies (or just Nominet?) that hold personal data are
> forced to publish it to the world, therefore they are more likely to
> register as a data controller? It may be cheaper than paying people to
> check that companies are not violating DPA regulations, but IMHO it is
> the wrong way to do it.
>
I didn't say that I agreed with the hypothesis, just that it
might be an explanation for the evolving situation.
> Does the DPR have the funding to follow-up complaints anyway?
>
They could always increase the £35 annual fee. Government
isn't usually shy about determining fees!
> [1] I know that 10Quid (per everything), Clicknames & Nominet have my
> home name & address details. I can only assume that all three are
> registered.[2]
>
Why assume when you can search the DPR database?
> [2] My main (longer-term) concern is than Nominet *NOT* do an NSI and
> sell their customer lists to UCE/UBE merchants. I have not studied the
> new T&C's in enough detail to be certain that there is no loophole
> that allows this. [3]
>
I actually believe that we are fortunate to have the current
Nominet administration. Its never going to be possible to
satisfy everyone. I'm sure the directors are aware of the
controversy.
> [3] I do not like the new T&C's which, strongly, suggest/state that
> only a director can sign a domain form for a limited company. Most
> directors won't know what a domain is. The rest would blindly sign the
> form without reading it, provided their PA had "approved" it. Managers
> and other _appointed_ officials can enter into legally binding
> agreements for companies, so why can't they sign domain forms?
>
Ultimately, its the company directors that are responsible
if anything goes wrong. If they are not sure then they should
seek professional advice, would you agree?
Stuart Millington
<ric...@highwayman.com> wrote:
>In article <sqp0dusl751l40r27...@4ax.com>, Stuart
>Millington <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> writes
>paying attention to page 14 - which discusses the exemption for
>"accounts and records". You might revise this advice.
OK. I think I am getting confused between the requirement to
disclose all data upon request (on payment of a fee) with the
requirement to register as a controller? - I probably am :(
>> FWIW I have never liked the idea of publishing "home" user's postal
>>addresses with domain name details (some thief thinks "They have a
>>domain name, so they must have a computer", etc.).
>
>given the current level of penetration of computers into the general
>population, you'll find that examining the outside of the house is more
>likely to indicate where machines are going to be found
The only external indication at my house is a "telephone line". The
computer on the other end is not visible from the outside of the house
- ISDN and POTS lines AFAICT look the same from the outside of the
building.
Stuart Millington
>"Stuart Millington" <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:sqp0dusl751l40r27...@4ax.com...
>> Forcing companies to publish customer's personal details seems a
>> very strange way of encouraging the companies to register. For a
[snip]
>I did say that it was only my opinion. Anyway, its not only
>companies that need to consider their position but anyone
>who processes personal data. The self assessment test at
>the DPR is quite comprehensive.
True.
>> Does the DPR have the funding to follow-up complaints anyway?
>They could always increase the £35 annual fee. Government
>isn't usually shy about determining fees!
True, but this would be counter-productive if their aim was to
ensure that companies registered.
>Why assume when you can search the DPR database?
Lack of "round tuits".
>> [2] My main (longer-term) concern is than Nominet *NOT* do an NSI and
>> sell their customer lists to UCE/UBE merchants. I have not studied the
>> new T&C's in enough detail to be certain that there is no loophole
>> that allows this. [3]
>>
>I actually believe that we are fortunate to have the current
>Nominet administration. Its never going to be possible to
>satisfy everyone. I'm sure the directors are aware of the
>controversy.
Hence why they claimed to "draw their authority from the UK
internet community" - when most of the "UK internet community" has
never even heard of Nominet... Still, they are better than NSI...
>> [3] I do not like the new T&C's which, strongly, suggest/state that
>> only a director can sign a domain form for a limited company. Most
>> directors won't know what a domain is. The rest would blindly sign the
>> form without reading it, provided their PA had "approved" it. Managers
>> and other _appointed_ officials can enter into legally binding
>> agreements for companies, so why can't they sign domain forms?
>>
>Ultimately, its the company directors that are responsible
>if anything goes wrong.
Yes, they are ultimately responsible. However, Nominet's current
forms appear to prevent anyone other than a director from signing them
on behalf of a limited company. This is very certainly non-standard
practice. It is routine in larger companies for senior managers to
enter into legally binding agreements for 10K+/100+K/etc. GBP[1]
without a director being required to sign the paperwork. For Nominet
to state that *only* a director can sign a contract for a 5-10GBP
domain name is patently ridiculous.
> If they are not sure then they should
>seek professional advice, would you agree?
Yes, Nominet should ;) Seriously, if a "manager" can sign a
contract for 10K GBP, why should they not be able to sign a Nominet
domain certificate for a 5-10 GBP domain?
[1] Dependant on the size of the company and the seniority of the
manager.
James Coupe
<den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Random Person has never given explicit permission to Nominet to allow
>>that, it's just been a change in T&Cs.
>
>Unfortunately it seems not, as apparently Nominet T&Cs have always
>allowed for publishing, as has their DPA notification to the IC.
The extracts provided on the protest website certainly suggest it would
be not unreasonable for any person who was signing up to them to think
that their names were being transmitted, nothing else.
rp
>
> Seriously, if a "manager" can sign a
> contract for 10K GBP, why should they not be able to sign
> a Nominet domain certificate for a 5-10 GBP domain?
>
The true cost/value of an Internet domain name to a
Company could be many times the face value. It is
right and proper that the directors are in control.
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
>>
>>I take it from your ever more increasing tiresome threads that you have
>>opted out of voting rights and had your name expunged from the council
>>registry as well ?
> Why don't you just use your killfile if you aren't interested?
Why should he? he asked a perfectl;y valid question.. so please
answer it as it does pertain to what you are arguing about.
Steve Peake
> FWIW I have never liked the idea of publishing "home" user's postal
> addresses with domain name details (some thief thinks "They have a
> domain name, so they must have a computer", etc.). The "American Way"
> is not always the best way - despite what citizens of the USA, which
> is only a part of the American continent, say :(
Of course the American way on domains seems to be that everyone has a false
address and telephone number, so I guess it won't be long before that become
standard over here.
Steve
Philomena
>In alt.internet.providers.uk Philomena <nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>I take it from your ever more increasing tiresome threads that you have
>>>opted out of voting rights and had your name expunged from the council
>>>registry as well ?
>> Why don't you just use your killfile if you aren't interested?
>
>Why should he? he asked a perfectl;y valid question.. so please
>answer it as it does pertain to what you are arguing about.
As a matter of fact, Nominet could pick up a clue from the court
decision over the sale of council registers. The councils believed
that they were entitled to sell the registers, and certainly it was
common knowledge that it was the practice of councils to sell the
registers; but the court found against them and the judge said:
"Mr Justice Kay said that selling the register without affording
individual electors a right of objection was a disproportionate way in
which to give effect to the legitimate objective in question."
The case was brought under the Human Rights Act legislation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1659000/1659807.stm
Richard Clayton
Millington <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 2 May 2002 00:25:58 +0100, Richard Clayton
><ric...@highwayman.com> wrote:
>>given the current level of penetration of computers into the general
>>population, you'll find that examining the outside of the house is more
>>likely to indicate where machines are going to be found
>
> The only external indication at my house is a "telephone line". The
>computer on the other end is not visible from the outside of the house
>- ISDN and POTS lines AFAICT look the same from the outside of the
>building.
I'm suggesting that you can detect the presence of computers by the
general type of neighbourhood -- and hence it would be wasted effort for
a thief to consult a database of domain name holders as a way of
determining which houses to burgle.
There are good arguments, on points of principle (on both sides). Let's
drop the specious ones.
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> As a matter of fact, Nominet could pick up a clue from the court
> decision over the sale of council registers. The councils believed
why go round the issue and go on about something not to do with the
issue at hand. Please answer the question you were asked.
:)
Ronan Flood
> In message <7cg0du4dlci35e566...@4ax.com>, Denis Mcmahon
> <den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >Unfortunately it seems not, as apparently Nominet T&Cs have always
> >allowed for publishing, as has their DPA notification to the IC.
>
> The extracts provided on the protest website certainly suggest it would
> be not unreasonable for any person who was signing up to them to think
> that their names were being transmitted, nothing else.
Do they, though?
"Section 7.10
The Register of .UK Domain Names will include the names of the
Applicant and the Administrative Contact and other details
relating to them. This information (if it refers to individuals) is
'personal data' for the purposes of data protection legislation.
NOMINET UK may allow other organisations and members of
the public to access the data for the purpose of obtaining
information about the registration of the Domain Name or any
other related purpose."
So, "the names of the Applicant and the Administrative Contact and
other details relating to them" -- depends what "them" can be
interpreted as covering. If you want to say it means only details
of the administrative contact, then you read "the names of the
Applicant" as separate from "and the ...", which would be odd.
Maybe if it said "the name of the Applicant" there'd be a stronger
case.
Personally I'd prefer not to have my home address attached to my
personal domain, which was one reason for not using a .com etc.
--
Ronan Flood <R.F...@noc.ulcc.ac.uk>
working for but not speaking for
Network Services, University of London Computer Centre
(which means: don't bother ULCC if I've said something you don't like)
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> Of course the American way on domains seems to be that everyone has a false
> address and telephone number, so I guess it won't be long before that become
> standard over here.
To their own detriment, as Nominet is getting very tough on
enforcing it's T&Cs.. so those who provide false details will very
easily find their domain no longer exists in their name as it will
be cancelled and may even get registered by someone else.
Philomena
>In alt.internet.providers.uk Philomena <nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
>> As a matter of fact, Nominet could pick up a clue from the court
>> decision over the sale of council registers. The councils believed
>
>why go round the issue and go on about something not to do with the
>issue at hand.
Eh? If you don't think the sale of council registers is relevant, why
do you think it's relevant whether or not I'm on the council register?
You've lost me there.
>Please answer the question you were asked.
>:)
Why? Presumably you think you have some sound reason for demanding
that I answer you, because otherwise it would be simple impertinence.
Are you arguing that everyone on the electoral roll has forfeited any
right to have an opinion about Nominet's proposals? Or perhaps you're
arguing the opposite -- that everyone who _isn't_ on the electoral
roll has forfeited any right to have an opinion about Nominet's
proposals?
Whichever it is, it's better in my opinion and certainly far more
civil to argue in terms of general principles rather than in terms of
one individual, i.e. me. But if you insist on arguing about me rather
than the general question, then you can quite easily argue about it
hypothetically, for instance you could say "If you are/aren't on the
elctoral roll then you have/haven't any business objecting to
Nominet's plans to publish your address online."
Dave J.
Peake' mentioned:
This is why I have been decrying the fuss over all of this, if enough
fuss is made it will be backed by the high courts or 'real life' laws
will be made to apply in some way. Once that happens it will become
more difficult to sign up with a dodgy address. At the moment all you
need is to be able to receive mail from that address.
We don't *want* the nosy so-and-so's to be able to trace the wise so
don't defend the feeble straights, let them send their real address
for the world to see. As long as there are thousands of straighties
for every awake person we'll be ignored.. A good thing, no?
--
Dave Johnson : req...@freeuk.com
James Coupe
<ro...@noc.ulcc.ac.uk> writes:
> "Section 7.10
>
> The Register of .UK Domain Names will include the names of the
> Applicant and the Administrative Contact and other details
> relating to them. This information (if it refers to individuals) is
> 'personal data' for the purposes of data protection legislation.
> NOMINET UK may allow other organisations and members of
> the public to access the data for the purpose of obtaining
> information about the registration of the Domain Name or any
> other related purpose."
>
>So, "the names of the Applicant and the Administrative Contact and
>other details relating to them" -- depends what "them" can be
>interpreted as covering. If you want to say it means only details
>of the administrative contact, then you read "the names of the
>Applicant" as separate from "and the ...", which would be odd.
However, were it a simple list, it would generally end up in the format:
"the names of the Applicant, the Administrative Contact and
other details relating to them"
from where I stand.
It would be akin to assuming that, when you asked J. Random Person to
pick you up a meal, when you asked for "fish and chips and bread and
butter" that the "butter" applied to the "fish".
Ronan Flood
> >So, "the names of the Applicant and the Administrative Contact and
> >other details relating to them" -- depends what "them" can be
> >interpreted as covering. If you want to say it means only details
> >of the administrative contact, then you read "the names of the
> >Applicant" as separate from "and the ...", which would be odd.
>
> However, were it a simple list, it would generally end up in the format:
>
> "the names of the Applicant, the Administrative Contact and
> other details relating to them"
>
> from where I stand.
I'd read that as implying "the names of other details".
> It would be akin to assuming that, when you asked J. Random Person to
> pick you up a meal, when you asked for "fish and chips and bread and
> butter" that the "butter" applied to the "fish".
Or it could mean fish with a chip butty! Not convinced.
(Speaking of odd food, I've just eaten a king-size KitKat Chunky which
was all chocolate and no wafer -- unwise; feeling a bit queasy already)
Jack & Megan
>In alt.internet.providers.uk Steve Peake <sp...@puppet-head.co.uk> wrote:
>> Of course the American way on domains seems to be that everyone has a false
>> address and telephone number, so I guess it won't be long before that become
>> standard over here.
>
>To their own detriment, as Nominet is getting very tough on
>enforcing it's T&Cs.. so those who provide false details will very
>easily find their domain no longer exists in their name as it will
>be cancelled and may even get registered by someone else.
So, you're basically saying that those who value privacy have no right
to a .uk domain name? Nice country we live in... :-(
--
- Jack & Megan.
http://underworld.enchantress.org.uk http://www.railway.stormshadow.co.uk
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk
Philomena
<tg...@microvst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 3 May 2002 08:29:52 +0100, Jack & Megan
><night...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So, you're basically saying that those who value privacy have no right
>> to a .uk domain name?
>
>Are you sure it's just privacy you want and not secrecy and anonymity?
>
>The information you object to publishing is not materially different from
>what is ordinarily published in order for one to exercise the right to
>vote, and that comes ahead of any "right" to a .uk domain in my opinion.
I've just telephoned my local council electoral office to enquire what
effect the court case has had on the sale of the council register. I
was told that a Home Office circular instructed all councils to stop
selling the register for commercial purposes. They couldn't lay their
hands on a reference for the circular but are going to send it to me
when they find it.
The register will still be printed and available in local libraries
and town halls I suppose, and no doubt the CD-ROM will still be
available to those who have a legitimate need for it for electoral
purposes; but that sort of "publication" is very different from whois,
which is available and freely and anonymously searchable online.
dee
<tg...@microvst.demon.co.uk> writes
>The information you object to publishing is not materially different from
>what is ordinarily published in order for one to exercise the right to
Not necessarily - I use my domain almost exclusively as do many others.
--
dee
Murff
>
> On Fri, 3 May 2002 08:29:52 +0100, Jack & Megan
> <night...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > to a .uk domain name?
>
Precisely what is wrong with secrecy and anonymity ?
Or do you think ex-directory phone numbers should be banned ? I'll
bet if they ever *do* ban them, the politicians' ones will remain
unlisted.
> The information you object to publishing is not materially different from
> what is ordinarily published in order for one to exercise the right to
> vote, and that comes ahead of any "right" to a .uk domain in my opinion.
You're either forgetting, or ignoring, context.
That your address may be determinable from the electoral roll says
nothing about you other than you are entitled to vote. Your address
details appearing on an easily - and publically - mined data source
that specifically identifies something about you is another matter.
That you're probably university educated, technically literate,
perhaps a "higher earner" and, by an automated test of "www.{whatever}"
maybe even more detail.
You might be willing to sell this information to marketers. There is
no justification for somebody else giving it away for free.
Murff...
Sam Kington
[Electoral register]
> The register will still be printed and available in local libraries
> and town halls I suppose, and no doubt the CD-ROM will still be
> available to those who have a legitimate need for it for electoral
> purposes; but that sort of "publication" is very different from whois,
> which is available and freely and anonymously searchable online.
Not exactly - if you query the whois too often from the same IP address,
you'll get your access blocked. In addition, Nominet pretty much require
people like UK2 who do large volumes of queries from a web page to use an
alternate whois server, and pass along the IP address of the remote host, so
you can't (easily) check the whois through a third-party web site either.
Now, with a fair bit of cunning and ingenuity you can probably get round
these obstacles, but it's not the same as "freely and anonymously".
Oh, and you first need a list of .uk domain names before you can check their
address details. You can't just flip through a book of them, because there
isn't one.
Sam
--
UK2.NET Senior Developer
Disclaimer: Not necessarily UK2's opinion
Philomena
wrote:
>Philomena wrote:
>[Electoral register]
>> The register will still be printed and available in local libraries
>> and town halls I suppose, and no doubt the CD-ROM will still be
>> available to those who have a legitimate need for it for electoral
>> purposes; but that sort of "publication" is very different from whois,
>> which is available and freely and anonymously searchable online.
>
>Not exactly - if you query the whois too often from the same IP address,
>you'll get your access blocked. In addition, Nominet pretty much require
>people like UK2 who do large volumes of queries from a web page to use an
>alternate whois server, and pass along the IP address of the remote host, so
>you can't (easily) check the whois through a third-party web site either.
>
>Now, with a fair bit of cunning and ingenuity you can probably get round
>these obstacles, but it's not the same as "freely and anonymously".
By "freely" I mean that it's free, it doesn't cost you money. By
anonymous I mean that it's anonymous. And bulk queries are not the
only concern. If it's the home address of one particular person
that's wanted, it'll be easy to find from the person's email address.
Jack & Megan
>"Anthony R. Gold" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 3 May 2002 08:29:52 +0100, Jack & Megan
>> <night...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > So, you're basically saying that those who value privacy have no right
>> > to a .uk domain name?
>>
>> Are you sure it's just privacy you want and not secrecy and anonymity?
>
>Precisely what is wrong with secrecy and anonymity ?
>
>Or do you think ex-directory phone numbers should be banned ? I'll
>bet if they ever *do* ban them, the politicians' ones will remain
>unlisted.
>
>> The information you object to publishing is not materially different from
>> what is ordinarily published in order for one to exercise the right to
>> vote, and that comes ahead of any "right" to a .uk domain in my opinion.
>
>You're either forgetting, or ignoring, context.
Indeed - everyone seems to be assuming that all domains are registered
to people's real names, and hence the information could be obtained by
other methods.
What of domains registered to things other than real names?
Suppose I register "alien-sheep-cult.co.uk" and register it for "The
Alien Sheep Cult". Now suppose that said sheep cult exists only
on-line, and the name is never used in any real-world situation, and is
thus never included in anything like the UK Info CD someone mentioned.
The sheep cult do not provide any public service or sell anything,
neither to they process data in a manner that requires registration with
the DPR.
Currently, they have complete anonymity. Under the new system, the
address of the registrant will be wide open to anyone, anywhere, with a
simple whois query - and there are plenty of websites that include such
a facility.
>That your address may be determinable from the electoral roll says
>nothing about you other than you are entitled to vote. Your address
>details appearing on an easily - and publically - mined data source
>that specifically identifies something about you is another matter.
>That you're probably university educated, technically literate,
>perhaps a "higher earner" and, by an automated test of "www.{whatever}"
>maybe even more detail.
>
>You might be willing to sell this information to marketers. There is
>no justification for somebody else giving it away for free.
Exactly.
- J.
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> What of domains registered to things other than real names?
Then once again I suggest you read the contract and note exactly
what details need to go into the 'registrant/owner' field.
The contract you have with Nominet can be called into question if
one of the parties listed is not a 'legal entity', or a 'known
as/trading as' name backed by the legal entities name.
Anonymous
As a private individual I used the name of a then existing but
now bankrupt company for my
address, phone number, etc.
Sort of glad I did that now
Graham Murray
> Oh, and you first need a list of .uk domain names before you can check their
> address details. You can't just flip through a book of them, because there
> isn't one.
So presumably there are no nameservers which would allow you to
perform a zone transfer on "co.uk.", "org.uk." etc?
James Coupe
<ro...@noc.ulcc.ac.uk> writes:
>> It would be akin to assuming that, when you asked J. Random Person to
>> pick you up a meal, when you asked for "fish and chips and bread and
>> butter" that the "butter" applied to the "fish".
>
>Or it could mean fish with a chip butty! Not convinced.
Who needs to be convinced?
You can clearly see there is ambiguity in an "<x> and <y> and <z>"
construction as to what each of them can be considered to apply to.
Which is the "right" interpretation is something that would be hard to
determine without lawyers.
Roland Perry
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
>>>> As a matter of fact, Nominet could pick up a clue from the court
>>>> decision over the sale of council registers. The councils believed
>
Don't forget to also include a copy of the Representation of the People
Act 2000, which is pertinent in this case.
--
Roland Perry
Philomena
wrote:
Yes, I agree. The electoral register decision isn't entirely
comparable, because there is no right to a domain name in the way that
there's a right to vote.
That doesn't mean that Nominet's decision is invulnerable though. I'm
not a lawyer so won't even try to speculate but I'm sure it must be
true that cases which set precedents, like the Robertson case, are
usually cases in which the defendants feel certain that they have a
legal right to do whatever it is they're doing -- in Nominet's case,
displaying the home addresses. The clue I think Nominet could
usefully pick up from the Robertson case is that a certain number of
registrants _will_ strongly object to their action, and of that
number, there's a good chance that there will be at least one who's
prepared to contest it as far as possible. And no one can be
absolutely certain how a court case will turn out, especially a case
brought under the Human Rights Act since that is so recent and
therefore still very much open to interpretation.
But I don't think Nominet will listen. I think it will end in court.
The Flying Hamster
IIRC zone transfers against .(co|org|net|plc|ltd).uk are blocked
except from a small number of 'trusted' hosts (ie the secondary
servers and I assume some 'others').
That's not to say that there aren't attempts to 'guess' the names in
active use on the net and attempt zone transfers of those from their
nameservers (see this frequently on the servers I maintain).
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@korenwolf.net> http://www.korenwolf.net/
"Life is a boomerang"
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> displaying the home addresses. The clue I think Nominet could
> usefully pick up from the Robertson case is that a certain number of
> registrants _will_ strongly object to their action, and of that
You need to clarify what exactly you mean by 'certain number of' -
1%, 10% or100%of the registrants?
> number, there's a good chance that there will be at least one who's
> prepared to contest it as far as possible. And no one can be
Yes - and this is most probably what is needed - hence my comment
earlier in this thread that someone with deep pockets may need to
take this to court if they wish to contest it.
> But I don't think Nominet will listen. I think it will end in court.
Nominet listens to it's lawyers where legal issues are concerned. If
your lawyers think differently then you are open and free to spend
your money to ask them to contest it.
Leo Vegoda
about Re: "Nominet challenged on personal data changes":
[...]
> usually cases in which the defendants feel certain that they have a
> legal right to do whatever it is they're doing -- in Nominet's case,
> displaying the home addresses. The clue I think Nominet could
I don't know where you got this strange idea about requiring people to
publish a home address. Look at this from the FAQ (linked from the front
page) on the web site:
- What can Registrants do if they don't want their own details
displayed on the WHOIS?
- Registrants are reminded that although they must provide accurate
contact details at the point of registration, they can use a "care
of" address. A Post Office Box is also a valid contact address.
However, you must ensure that NOMINET can contact you through the
address that you provide. Failure to provide an address through
which contact can be made may result in the cancellation of your
domain name. It is therefore very important to keep this information
up-to-date.
So you could use any kind of "care of" address in any country. I suppose
the easiest way to disguise your details (if you are employed) is to use
your employers' address. However, there's gotta be loads of commercial
organisations willing to offer this kind of service.
Regards,
-leo
Philomena
>On Sat, 04 May 2002 11:22:54 GMT, (nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid) wrote
>about Re: "Nominet challenged on personal data changes":
>
>[...]
>
>> usually cases in which the defendants feel certain that they have a
>> legal right to do whatever it is they're doing -- in Nominet's case,
>> displaying the home addresses. The clue I think Nominet could
>
>I don't know where you got this strange idea about requiring people to
>publish a home address.
[..]
>So you could use any kind of "care of" address in any country.
In practice it would have to be a business address, since for a
residential address the same privacy concerns would apply
> I suppose
>the easiest way to disguise your details (if you are employed) is to use
>your employers' address.
Not everyone has an employer who will permit that.
> However, there's gotta be loads of commercial
>organisations willing to offer this kind of service.
Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
that and I imagine most people would be.
Leo Vegoda
[...]
> >So you could use any kind of "care of" address in any country.
>
> In practice it would have to be a business address, since for a
> residential address the same privacy concerns would apply
Of course.
> > I suppose
> >the easiest way to disguise your details (if you are employed) is to use
> >your employers' address.
>
> Not everyone has an employer who will permit that.
Indeed.
> > However, there's gotta be loads of commercial
> >organisations willing to offer this kind of service.
>
> Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
> used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
> cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
> that and I imagine most people would be.
I agree that the tagholder would be the ideal default for the majority
of consumers of domain names. However, I think it's inappropriate to
expect it to be a free service (or paid for by Nominet - that would just
mean increased prices for domain names). Of course, anyone who implemented
such a service would be free to charge as they wanted (that's freedom
for you) but I'd personally prefer to opt for a 'charge per contact'
structure.
Regards,
-leo
Philomena
>On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:05:24 GMT, (nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid) wrote
>Re: "Nominet challenged on personal data changes":
>
>[...]
>> Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
>> used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
>> cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
>> that and I imagine most people would be.
>
>I agree that the tagholder would be the ideal default for the majority
>of consumers of domain names. However, I think it's inappropriate to
>expect it to be a free service
Well as far as I'm concerned that's between Nominet and the tagholder.
> (or paid for by Nominet
Of course it should be paid for by Nominet. They are the ones who
want this to happen.
> - that would just
>mean increased prices for domain names).
Perhaps but domain name prices are ludicrously cheap so it wouldn't be
a disaster if the wholesale price went up a bit.
> Of course, anyone who implemented
>such a service would be free to charge as they wanted (that's freedom
>for you) but I'd personally prefer to opt for a 'charge per contact'
>structure.
Nominet can do the haggling, as they're doing the paying (in this
scenario).
Rev Adrian Kennard
> On Thu, 02 May 2002 10:45:59 GMT, {$DB$}@cyberstrider.net wrote:
>
>
>>In alt.internet.providers.uk Philomena <nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>As a matter of fact, Nominet could pick up a clue from the court
>>>decision over the sale of council registers. The councils believed
>>>
>>why go round the issue and go on about something not to do with the
>>issue at hand. Please answer the question you were asked.
>>:)
>>
>
> It is an analagous court decision very much of relevance. Why are you
> "internetty" people dodging the real issue?
And the basis was that the right to vote was conditionally
on accepting your details were sold, and this was not
acceptable.
The "right" to a domain being conditional on the T&Cs for getting
that domain which include the publication of contact details
seems completely unrelated as there is no "right" to a domain.
--
_ Rev. Adrian Kennard, Andrews & Arnold Ltd
(_) _| _ . _ _ ADSL without the 12 month tie in. http://adsl.ms/
( )(_|( |(_|| ) ADSL with fixed IP in 3-5 days... http://adsl.ms/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Need a good firewall: http://www.FireBrick.info/
Rev Adrian Kennard
> On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:05:24 GMT, nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid
> (Philomena) wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
>>used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
>>cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
>>that and I imagine most people would be.
>>
>
> I would second that.
Errr... If nominet agreed to cover costs, then those costs would
just go on the cost of the domain and you would pay anyway. They
are a non for profit organization, and whilst surpluses may fluctuate,
ultimately any increase in costs would be passed on... So why
not just pay for it in the first place?
James Coupe
<nos...@nospam.com> writes:
>>Errr... If nominet agreed to cover costs, then those costs would
>>just go on the cost of the domain and you would pay anyway. They
>>are a non for profit organization, and whilst surpluses may fluctuate,
>>ultimately any increase in costs would be passed on... So why
>>not just pay for it in the first place?
>
Erm, that just sounds like common sense from here. Not for profit, so
it covers its costs. You up its costs, you up the prices it charges.
(Eventually.)
Philomena
<Tha...@by-sending-this-email-i-agree-to-pay-a-kennard-50-ukpounds.co.uk>
wrote:
>equity wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:05:24 GMT, nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid
>> (Philomena) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
>>>used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
>>>cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
>>>that and I imagine most people would be.
>>>
>>
>> I would second that.
>
>
>Errr... If nominet agreed to cover costs, then those costs would
>just go on the cost of the domain and you would pay anyway. They
>are a non for profit organization, and whilst surpluses may fluctuate,
>ultimately any increase in costs would be passed on... So why
>not just pay for it in the first place?
Because then a subsection of the registrants would be paying to keep
Nominet from publishing our home addresses online. That's
objectionable. If Nominet pays for it, the extra cost gets spread
over the whole of the namespace which both reduces the cost per name
and also keeps it clear what is being paid for: Nominet is paying the
costs of avoiding infringing people's privacy.
Philomena
(Philomena) wrote:
>Because then a subsection of the registrants would be paying to keep
>Nominet from publishing our home addresses online. That's
>objectionable. If Nominet pays for it, the extra cost gets spread
>over the whole of the namespace which both reduces the cost per name
>and also keeps it clear what is being paid for: Nominet is paying the
>costs of avoiding infringing people's privacy.
Also there's another reason Nominet should pay. If it goes ahead with
its proposals more people will give duff addresses.[1]
If Nominet came to an agreement with its tagholders about letting
their addresses being used by their registrants, it would have fewer
duff addresses on its database.
Sigh. I do wish Nominet would at least make some gesture towards
being willing to negotiate to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Apologies for following up myself.
[1] Some already do of course but more will do so, and all the threats
about detagging domains won't change that. And anyway, Nominet takes
ages to detag a domain even when it's asked to so the threat rings a
bit hollow.
Denis Mcmahon
xp to parent and child group inappropriate.
nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid (Philomena) wrote:
>Because then a subsection of the registrants would be paying to keep
>Nominet from publishing our home addresses online. That's
>objectionable. If Nominet pays for it, the extra cost gets spread
>over the whole of the namespace which both reduces the cost per name
>and also keeps it clear what is being paid for: Nominet is paying the
>costs of avoiding infringing people's privacy.
Hang on, Nominet doesn't pay for anything, the registrants pay for
everything.
Explain how "fair" means other registrants who are happy to have
contact addresses in whois in accordance with the T&Cs they signed up
to should pay extra to provide a service for a small number of
registrants who wish to avoid their obligations under the T&Cs they
signed up to.
Rgds
Denis
--
To Reply: Trim quote, delete sigsep & sig, add reply at end
Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk
Entry conditions for killfile include top-post, advert, bin
I block /16 of UC/BE relays, posts > 100 lines not retrieved
Denis Mcmahon
xp to parent and child group inappropriate.
nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid (Philomena) wrote:
>Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
>used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
>cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
>that and I imagine most people would be.
I would imagine most registrants would be quite pissed off that they
were subsidising a service used by a small fraction.
From the quantity of objections voiced in here, I doubt that the
objectors cater for more than 5 ~ 10% maximum of registrants, and as
all Nominets income comes from registration fees, why should a service
to benefit a small %age who want to be different come out of central
funds.
If you want Nominet to do something special for you, then you should
pay the cost of doing it.
Philomena
<den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>note - uk.net removed from follow up as uk.net.regulation is included,
>xp to parent and child group inappropriate.
>
>nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid (Philomena) wrote:
>
>>Because then a subsection of the registrants would be paying to keep
>>Nominet from publishing our home addresses online. That's
>>objectionable. If Nominet pays for it, the extra cost gets spread
>>over the whole of the namespace which both reduces the cost per name
>>and also keeps it clear what is being paid for: Nominet is paying the
>>costs of avoiding infringing people's privacy.
>
>Hang on, Nominet doesn't pay for anything, the registrants pay for
>everything.
Well, not entirely. There's also the other revenue streams like the
membership key money and annual fee. And possibly other sources of
income I suppose. Four million does seem a lot of money. How many
five-poundses is that?
>Explain how "fair"
"Fair"? I didn't say anything about fair, did I?. I said that I'd be
happy with a solution along these lines.
> means other registrants who are happy to have
>contact addresses in whois in accordance with the T&Cs they signed up
>to should pay extra to provide a service for a small number of
>registrants who wish to avoid their obligations under the T&Cs they
>signed up to.
You're mistaken there. I didn't sign up to Nominet's t&c, not even
the ones that were in force at the time, not even via a clickthrough.
I doubt if I'm the only one.
But in any case, it wouldn't be a service for me, it would be a
service bought and paid for by Nominet in the interests of (a)
avoiding infringing registrants' privacy; and (b) improving the
accuracy of its database; and (c) avoiding the possibility of legal
action arising from such things as false invoices. I'm quite happy
with the status quo and don't need or desire an accommodation
address. If Nominet wants my address displayed online then it seems
to me a reasonable suggestion that Nominet should pay the associated
costs. If they don't want to pass the costs on to the customer they
can either pay it out of the alleged four million stash, if true, or
they can bump up the members' key money and annual fee. Several
members have commented on how cheap membership is, so it can clearly
bear a moderate increase without mass resignations.
Philomena
<den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>note - uk.net removed from follow up as uk.net.regulation is included,
>xp to parent and child group inappropriate.
>
>nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid (Philomena) wrote:
>
>>Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
>>used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
>>cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
>>that and I imagine most people would be.
>
>I would imagine most registrants would be quite pissed off that they
>were subsidising a service used by a small fraction.
An unknown number of registrants will be pissed off if their addresses
are displayed. I wouldn't venture to try to estimate the size of the
group as I have no facts on which to base such a guess.
>From the quantity of objections voiced in here, I doubt that the
>objectors cater for more than 5 ~ 10% maximum of registrants,
"Cater for"? I don't understand what you mean by that in this
context. If you mean that you don't think more than 5-10% of
registrants will object to the display of addresses, again I will say
that I don't have any facts to base an estimate on. But this group is
probably not representative, as non-lurkers seem to be mostly
tagholders or transients looking for a new provider.
> and as
>all Nominets income comes from registration fees, why should a service
>to benefit a small %age who want to be different come out of central
>funds.
Want to be different? If that's the way you see it, I'll drop out of
this argument with you since neither of us is likely to be able to
alter the other's point of view. It's certainly nothing to do with
"being different", and I must say I'm quite surprised that you see it
that way. However.
>If you want Nominet to do something special for you, then you should
>pay the cost of doing it.
I'd like Nominet to stop threatening to display my home address
online, that's what I'd like from Nominet.
Jack & Megan
>In uk.net Jack & Megan <night...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> What of domains registered to things other than real names?
>
>Then once again I suggest you read the contract and note exactly
>what details need to go into the 'registrant/owner' field.
>
>The contract you have with Nominet can be called into question if
>one of the parties listed is not a 'legal entity', or a 'known
>as/trading as' name backed by the legal entities name.
So a group of mates can't get together, decide to call themselves some
silly name, and register a domain for their collective website? Why not
- what harm would it cause?
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> So a group of mates can't get together, decide to call themselves some
> silly name, and register a domain for their collective website? Why not
they can get together and call themselves some silly name. However
the 'Registrant' field needs to be their legal names, and the
'trading as' field can be their psuedonym.
> - what harm would it cause?
the harm is only to them if they give false details as the contract
they have with Nominet will nto be valid.
Jack & Megan
>> So a group of mates can't get together, decide to call themselves some
>> silly name, and register a domain for their collective website? Why not
>
>they can get together and call themselves some silly name. However
>the 'Registrant' field needs to be their legal names,
Why?
>and the
>'trading as' field can be their psuedonym.
Even if they don't trade in anything? Where's the point of that?
>> - what harm would it cause?
>
>the harm is only to them if they give false details as the contract
>they have with Nominet will nto be valid.
Sounds like a good reason to register in one of the "unofficial" TLDs
instead, uk.com or uk.co.
- J.
Leo Vegoda
[...]
> >> Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
> >> used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
> >> cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
> >> that and I imagine most people would be.
> >
> >I agree that the tagholder would be the ideal default for the majority
> >of consumers of domain names. However, I think it's inappropriate to
> >expect it to be a free service
>
> Well as far as I'm concerned that's between Nominet and the tagholder.
Exactly.
> > (or paid for by Nominet
>
> Of course it should be paid for by Nominet. They are the ones who
> want this to happen.
They probably don't *want* it to happen. According to that FAQ
they've published on their web site it says "Nominet has come under
increasing pressure to make Registrant contact details available
publicly, in line with other country code Top Level Domains Registries
around the world."
This leads me to believe that they are submitting to pressure from
outside. It's fairly safe to assume that it wasn't pressure from
individuals. Perhaps it is government/commercial pressure. I doubt
they suddenly came up with the idea just for the hell of it.
> > - that would just
> >mean increased prices for domain names).
>
> Perhaps but domain name prices are ludicrously cheap so it wouldn't be
> a disaster if the wholesale price went up a bit.
You might say that. I expect the cheapo service providers would
disagree. It might well kill off their (entirely legitimate)
business model.
> > Of course, anyone who implemented
> >such a service would be free to charge as they wanted (that's freedom
> >for you) but I'd personally prefer to opt for a 'charge per contact'
> >structure.
>
> Nominet can do the haggling, as they're doing the paying (in this
> scenario).
No they couldn't. They run a registry. That's it. They can't just
start requiring tag holders to start offering new services or
regulating prices. That's Adam Smith's job.
Regards,
-leo
Leo Vegoda
[...]
> >I don't know where you got this strange idea about requiring people to
> >publish a home address. Look at this from the FAQ (linked from the front
> >page) on the web site:
>
> We should not have to publish an address, FULL STOP.
Why should you have the right to be anonymous and uncontactable? Why
should you divert legitimate requests for your contact details to
Nominet? Why should I have to pay (in increased registration fees) for
your desire to be unreachable?
> Why should we go
> to the trouble and expense of that?
Because it is not unreasonable to expect for each indivodual to pay
his or her own way?
Regards,
-leo
Leo Vegoda
[...]
> Also there's another reason Nominet should pay. If it goes ahead with
> its proposals more people will give duff addresses.[1]
... and presumably end up losing their domain. Oh how I weep.
Regards,
-leo
Barry Dorrans
"Leo Vegoda" <l...@news.lurve.org> wrote in message
news:slrnadeqm...@toybox.amsterdamned.org...
> This leads me to believe that they are submitting to pressure from
> outside. It's fairly safe to assume that it wasn't pressure from
> individuals. Perhaps it is government/commercial pressure. I doubt
> they suddenly came up with the idea just for the hell of it.
A bill has been put before the US senate to make invalid domain addresses in
the US illegal. This opens a whole can of worms, as does nominet's decision.
For example, if you register a pro-abortion site, or anti-abortion site, or
any sort of hot topic, there are suitable nutcases out there that would be
very very happy to have your name and address
Anthony Edwards
> This leads me to believe that they are submitting to pressure from
> outside. It's fairly safe to assume that it wasn't pressure from
> individuals. Perhaps it is government/commercial pressure. I doubt
> they suddenly came up with the idea just for the hell of it.
Agreed, on the "pressure from outside" statement. That's how I've read
this too; organisations extremely rarely implement controversial and
potentially unpopular changes without good reasons. However, I do think
Nominet would perhaps deflect some of the criticism (assuming they wish to
do that of course) by publishing, at least in vague terms, the nature of
the pressure that they have come under (and give an indication of its
source).
--
Anthony Edwards
ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk
Anthony Edwards
> the harm is only to them if they give false details as the contract
> they have with Nominet will nto be valid.
However, if Nominet were to enforce that condition, there would then
(again) be an imbalance between Nominet's practice and that which pertains
in regard to .com, .net, .org etc where (as others have pointed out) the
giving of false address details (particularly by individuals) when
registering domains has become relatively commonplace. As far as I can
tell, the only contact information which other domain registries require to
be valid as a matter of enforced policy is contact email address(es).
--
Anthony Edwards
ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk
Tony Lewis
<den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>note - uk.net removed from follow up as uk.net.regulation is included,
>xp to parent and child group inappropriate.
>
>nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid (Philomena) wrote:
>
>>Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
>>used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
>>cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
>>that and I imagine most people would be.
>
>I would imagine most registrants would be quite pissed off that they
>were subsidising a service used by a small fraction.
>
>From the quantity of objections voiced in here, I doubt that the
>objectors cater for more than 5 ~ 10% maximum of registrants, and as
>all Nominets income comes from registration fees, why should a service
>to benefit a small %age who want to be different come out of central
>funds.
>
Totally unsubstantiated. Where did you invent this figure from? I've
sat quietly lurking. I have volunteered to run a small website for an
activity group and we now have a nice ***.org.uk domain name. I do
not want my address on the site particularly. I know many people who
do not even know how to use newsgroups that have registered a site
that would share the concern over many here that their address is
going to feature.
Business are one thing. I have to live with my business details being
made publically available to anyone who wishes to enquire. As a LTD
company then fair enough. But personal sites and hobbies ??
Anyway, no point in repeating what others have said far better than I
other than to express my dismay that so many people in the industry
seem to not want to act on the concerns of their clients.
---------
TonyL
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
>>they can get together and call themselves some silly name. However
>>the 'Registrant' field needs to be their legal names,
> Why?
It is a term in the contract - plus the contract needs to be between
*legal* entities. A pseudonym is not a legal entity without the names
of the legal entities behind it being made available.
This is simple contract 'law'
I for one would not enter into a contract with an ISP that only
trades on it's 'trade name' rather than telling me who the legal
entity is behind it - there are many el cheapo ISPs around who in
their T&Cs do not actually mention who they are - many people sign
up to them - for me, I like to know who I am dealing with... so that
if something does go wrong, I know who to take issue with.
>>and the
>>'trading as' field can be their psuedonym.
> Even if they don't trade in anything? Where's the point of that?
The trading as field can be used for Psuedonyms.. if you want ti use
a pseudonym then that is where that should go .. not in the 'legal
owner details' field.
>>> - what harm would it cause?
>>the harm is only to them if they give false details as the contract
>>they have with Nominet will nto be valid.
> Sounds like a good reason to register in one of the "unofficial" TLDs
> instead, uk.com or uk.co.
That is your choice.
I honestly do not understand why people sign up for something
without readng the T&Cs and then don't like it when the T&Cs are
enforced.
Dave J.
'Philomena' mentioned:
>Want to be different? If that's the way you see it, I'll drop out of
>this argument with you since neither of us is likely to be able to
>alter the other's point of view.
>It's certainly nothing to do with
>"being different", and I must say I'm quite surprised that you see it
>that way. However.
This _is_ Denis Mcmahon you're talking to.
--
Dave Johnson : req...@freeuk.com
Abacus
> On Mon, 06 May 2002 22:14:34 +0100, Denis Mcmahon
> <den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> From the quantity of objections voiced in here, I doubt that the
> all Nominets income comes from registration fees, why should a service
> to benefit a small %age who want to be different come out of central
> funds.
It doesn't read like "5 ~ 10%" of registrants to me, from just reading
this thread.
Checking the poll on the Nominet-No site gives:-
Nominet Poll
Should Nominet publish personal home addresses on the web?
No 2728 (83%)
I need more information 28 (0%)
Yes 274 (8%)
Is it legal? 138 (4%)
I'm not bothered 82 (2%)
3250 Total votes
Now, the figures don't quite add up but the totals do, and we've got a
complete turnaround from what you're suggesting here Denis - many
individuals with their own domain do not even know of this problem
yet, so why have Nominet been keeping it quiet?
Oh yes, they've advised the tagholders to advise all their
registrants, haven't they? Has anyone been advised of this by their
tagholder yet?
When do the tagholders propose to send this information to their
customers?
When (if?!) they do, will it then be too late?
Adrian Boliston
news:55f2b44f.02050...@posting.google.com...
> It doesn't read like "5 ~ 10%" of registrants to me, from just reading
> this thread.
>
> Checking the poll on the Nominet-No site gives:-
>
> Nominet Poll
> Should Nominet publish personal home addresses on the web?
> No 2728 (83%)........
As this is a poll posted on what is effectively a protest site the votes
would possibly not be representative of all uk domain holders.
The site by its nature would I expect tend to draw in mainly people who held
a strong view AGAINST a migration towards an ICANN style whois.
Richard Clayton
<abacu...@hotmail.com> writes
>It doesn't read like "5 ~ 10%" of registrants to me, from just reading
>this thread.
there's not many people contributing to this thread
>Checking the poll on the Nominet-No site gives:-
>
>Nominet Poll
>Should Nominet publish personal home addresses on the web?
>No 2728 (83%)
erm... I make that 0.0786%
http://www.nic.uk/news/stats/index.html
to put it into perspective... 5% of registrants (the lower end of the
range) objecting would be over 170,000 people
10% would be more than the total membership of the Conservative or
Labour parties....
I don't think there would be the same type of discussion at all if even
as many as 1% of the registrants were objecting.
--
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> online, that's what I'd like from Nominet.
I doubt they are threatening to do this. They *are* going to display
the contact information you have supplied in your registration, in
accordance with the T&Cs that you agreed to on registration.
Note, and this has been said time and again, your home address does
not need to be your contact address.
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> A lot of people don't yet know what Nominet are proposing.
Proposing? Since when has 'enforcing T&Cs' become 'proposing'?
>>I'd like Nominet to stop threatening to display my home address
>>online, that's what I'd like from Nominet.
> Indeed.
Indeed to 'threatening'? since when have Nomiet 'threatened' to
publish contact details?
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> to publish it, whatever they or their lawyers might seem to think.
Or even what the DPA thinks? Me thinks you need to go and read the
other threads *including* Nominet's DPA registration before making
any further misinformed comments.
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> AIUI at no point were ordinary users pointed to Nominet's t&cs!
and you can speak for all users and all ISPs? And you are also
telling me that those users who completed the 'certificate' form they
received from Nominet (which came with the T&Cs on a separate sheet
of paper) also did not read the T&Cs? Is that Nominet's fault or the
stupidity of the user who does nto read contracts to see what they
are letting themself in for?
Like I said earlier.. go and get the full facts before spouting off
misinformed comments.
{$D...@cyberstrider.net
> valid.
really? Have you asked Nominet this before coming back with a
totally misinformed reply?
Dave Holland
> http://www.nic.uk/news/stats/index.html
>to put it into perspective... 5% of registrants (the lower end of the
>range) objecting would be over 170,000 people
One person does not necessarily equal one registrant.
Dave
Rev Adrian Kennard
> On Mon, 06 May 2002 19:13:29 +0100, Rev Adrian Kennard
> <Tha...@by-sending-this-email-i-agree-to-pay-a-kennard-50-ukpounds.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>equity wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:05:24 GMT, nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid
>>>(Philomena) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
>>>>used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
>>>>cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
>>>>that and I imagine most people would be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I would second that.
>>>
>>
>>Errr... If nominet agreed to cover costs, then those costs would
>>just go on the cost of the domain and you would pay anyway. They
>>are a non for profit organization, and whilst surpluses may fluctuate,
>>ultimately any increase in costs would be passed on... So why
>>not just pay for it in the first place?
>>
>
> are you nominet's hried mouthpiece for the day?
No.
But there are some simple facts.
1. Nominet is not for profit.
2. If nominet did something that increased its costs, such
as covering the cost of providing forwarding addresses, then
they will have to increase their charges in the long run
as their long term not profit/loss must be zero.
3. Consequently, if nominet agreed, or were forced to,
cover the costs of any such thing the end result is that
you end up paying for it - so what's the point?
--
_ Rev. Adrian Kennard, Andrews & Arnold Ltd
(_) _| _ . _ _ ADSL without the 12 month tie in. http://adsl.ms/
( )(_|( |(_|| ) ADSL with fixed IP in 3-5 days... http://adsl.ms/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Need a good firewall: http://www.FireBrick.info/
Rev Adrian Kennard
> On Mon, 06 May 2002 19:13:29 +0100, Rev Adrian Kennard
> <Tha...@by-sending-this-email-i-agree-to-pay-a-kennard-50-ukpounds.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>equity wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:05:24 GMT, nos...@ntlworld.com.invalid
>>>(Philomena) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, if Nominet were to offer to arrange for some other address to be
>>>>used, for example that of the tagholder, and if Nominet also agreed to
>>>>cover any costs involved in that arrangement, I'd be quite happy with
>>>>that and I imagine most people would be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I would second that.
>>>
>>
>>Errr... If nominet agreed to cover costs, then those costs would
>>just go on the cost of the domain and you would pay anyway. They
>>are a non for profit organization, and whilst surpluses may fluctuate,
>>ultimately any increase in costs would be passed on... So why
>>not just pay for it in the first place?
>>
>
> Because then a subsection of the registrants would be paying to keep
> Nominet from publishing our home addresses online. That's
> objectionable. If Nominet pays for it, the extra cost gets spread
> over the whole of the namespace which both reduces the cost per name
> and also keeps it clear what is being paid for: Nominet is paying the
> costs of avoiding infringing people's privacy.
Sorry, let's get this right, you want me to pay towards you having
a forwarding address ???
No.
Rev Adrian Kennard
> On 7 May 2002 08:31:21 -0700, abacu...@hotmail.com (Abacus) wrote:
>
>
>>When do the tagholders propose to send this information to their
>>customers?
>>
>>When (if?!) they do, will it then be too late?
>>
>
> How long before writs start flying.
What, taking action against nominet for breach of contract by
not currently displaying contact details as they agreed to?
Rev Adrian Kennard
> On 07 May 2002 06:03:42 GMT, l...@news.lurve.org (Leo Vegoda) wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 06 May 2002 18:45:14 +0100, (nos...@nospam.com) wrote
>>Re: "Nominet challenged on personal data changes":
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>>I don't know where you got this strange idea about requiring people to
>>>>publish a home address. Look at this from the FAQ (linked from the front
>>>>page) on the web site:
>>>>
>>>We should not have to publish an address, FULL STOP.
>>>
>>Why should you have the right to be anonymous and uncontactable? Why
>>should you divert legitimate requests for your contact details to
>>Nominet? Why should I have to pay (in increased registration fees) for
>>your desire to be unreachable?
>>
>
> Read the posting careflly Mr Fudging and Dodging the Issue Chap.
> Nowhere at all has anyone suggested that anonymity is what .uk users
> are after. Nominet has users' information, they do not have authority
> to publish it, whatever they or their lawyers might seem to think.
So you are saying that if someone agrees to a written contract which
says "we will publish your contact details", then that does not
give them authority to do so ?
What exactly would give them authority - a signature in blood?
Paul Giverin
<ric...@highwayman.com> writes
>In article <55f2b44f.02050...@posting.google.com>, Abacus
><abacu...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>It doesn't read like "5 ~ 10%" of registrants to me, from just reading
>>this thread.
>
>there's not many people contributing to this thread
>
--
Paul Giverin
British Jet Engine Website
http://www.britjet.co.uk
Dave J.
'{$DB$}@cyberstrider.net' mentioned:
>I honestly do not understand why people sign up for something
>without readng the T&Cs and then don't like it when the T&Cs are
>enforced.
Because there is no alternative way to register the domain name and so
terms and conditions are irrelevant until/unless they catch up to you?
The only way it is relevant is if you're silly enough to use a real
name and address for something that should carry no liability except
the risk of someone RL hassling you.
Don't talk about liability for virus distribution or some such, that
is covered by the plod's right to dig through ISP/host logs and find
the person who uploaded. The ownership of a domain name is in no way
sufficient to establish liability for that sort of crime.
The same probably holds for a libel action.
--
Dave Johnson : req...@freeuk.com
James Coupe
kennard-50-ukpounds.co.uk>, Rev Adrian Kennard <Thanks@by-sending-this-
email-i-agree-to-pay-a-kennard-50-ukpounds.co.uk> writes:
>So you are saying that if someone agrees to a written contract which
>says "we will publish your contact details", then that does not
>give them authority to do so ?
Whilst, in this case, it may be legitimate, it is true that just because
it says so in a contract doesn't necessarily give a company the right to
do that.
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Paul Womar
> So you are saying that if someone agrees to a written contract which
>
> says "we will publish your contact details", then that does not
> give them authority to do so ?
People keep saying that they saw the nominet T&Cs before they signed up,
I'm 90% sure I didn't see any, nor have Nominet made any attempt to
contact me or issue me with a cert.
--
-> The email address in this message *IS* Valid <-
Abacus
> In alt.internet.providers.uk horace rumpole <n...@spam.please> wrote:
> > are after. Nominet has users' information, they do not have authority
> > to publish it, whatever they or their lawyers might seem to think.
>
> Or even what the DPA thinks? Me thinks you need to go and read the
> other threads *including* Nominet's DPA registration before making
> any further misinformed comments.
Thank you Denesh for your enlightened view on the side of the
protestors.
The DPA is quite explicit; it's what the person whose 'personal data'
is held <b><i>believes</i></b> they signed up for being available on
the WHOIS; no amount of legal jargonese can sway people from what part
of their personal data they believed would be displayed.
The Ts & Cs can fail on just that; after all just because Nominet are
registered with the DPA, this does not give them carte blanche with
every part of their Registrant's personal data (although this is
apparently what they are trying to put across).
Thank you for your assistance.