8 posts • joined 3 Mar 2007
For everyone who says "Go to the courts", "get a court order" etc.
Who are you going to sue? The address details are false. This isn't America, so you can't sue the domain names themselves (and frankly, how does that provide any protection?)
The only way out is for Nominet to demand that the people involved provide correct addresses. But if they're crooks, they won't bother - they'll just start new companies/sites/domains.
PS Yes, with 8 million names of course Nominet only response to a false address complaint when someone makes it, and of course they trust the police at PeCU (who they know) more than they trust a caller on the phone (who they don't) and vary their checks accordingly. So what?
Verity Stob needs to use the university complaints process. The University may be more prepared to clean up the mess privately via the complaints process than under the full vulture-sight of El Reg - although its an interesting article.
If they won't deal with it she could try complaining to the University Ombudsman (officially, The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education) - http://www.oiahe.org.uk/
If its a matter of academic judgement they may decide not to do anything, but it is worth a go.
@ Angry AC + Prices
Nominet calls itself not-for-profit, which is technically true because no-one gets that profit. Really, its more a case of "not-for-dividend" because any profit doesn't go to the members, which discourages carpet-bagging.
Of course, it could stop making a surplus by reducing prices. The board cannot just do that - they'd need the membership to vote for it (weird constitutional restriction of Nominet - not normal for a company). As comments here show, not everyone wants domains cheaper (bulk domainers clearly do, others don't).
So what do you do with the money? There's only so many USB sticks you can buy for techies without breaking the no-dividend rule. They spent a chunk on suing some scammers a few years back. So now the board are giving it to charity (personally, I like the idea - certainly better than giving it to the Government, especially since Nominet isn't Government owned).
As for all this stuff....
>you cant register an IDN - international domain name (xn--) with any
>NOMINET owned addresses (see their arcane rules) - hello? this is 2008
>for f***s sake.
True, but they did a consultation about it, decided that it was difficult and focussed on other things. Read the consultation. Technically it isn't hard for Nominet, but the public don't understand them and customer support would be a nightmare.
>you cant use a direct TLD of .uk (every other country in the world
>does this) - those 5 or 6 that exist redate 1996 when the rule was
>changed to not allow .uk
True, but is that bad? Increases the number of available names - its just that most people only recognise .gov.uk and .co.uk - but that's just advertising to fix.
>Theres still no real moves for .gb release - thanks.
They don't own it. Look at IANA.
>theres still no real move to give scotland and wales their country code
They don't allocate top level domains (.scot, .wal etc). Go ask IANA.
>..and dont even get me started on DNSSEC. back in late 2007 they
> published a 'positional paper' which started off bright - they believe that
> it should be done - but by the last couple of pages they finished with a
>dozen cop-outs and tried to infuse a simple matter into something far
>more awkward and custom. hello? RFCs?
The original design allowed the entire .uk domain name list to be stolen, and from that all names and addresses to be taken from the WHOIS. They couldn't implement it. Slow and dull writing a better RFC may have been, but it turned a design that none of the big european registries (who comply with data protection laws) could use into one that they can.
Phone taps - or communications data
Phone taps - someone listening to my (boring) calls.
Communications data - looking at my itemised phone bill and web-browser history as stored by my ISP.
Do you really mean a quarter of a million phone taps, or do you mean a quarter of a million requests for communciations data - one is a lot less scary than the other?
Abuse through use
With Nominet's DRS there are two tests - is it abusive when it was registered (no), is it abusive today, now that life has moved on (in this case the expert said yes).
Just because he registered the name ages ago doesn't mean that once it (by accident or design) later becomes famous for something else, he can jump on that bandwagon and take advantage of that fame. If he had started a genuine business at the time and was still doing it, the DRS says "fine". But he wasn't - he changed to take advantage of the later company's subsequent reputation and that's what the DRS doesn't allow.
Surely the solution is to bang on the side of the van and say "If you don't consent to being scanned, get out now." Wait 1 minute then scan the van. Am I missing something, or should I be a highly paid consultant to the Border and Immigration Agency?
Is it really free energy?
The petrol is used to push the car forwards which involves moving the air out of the way. If the flow of the air is impeded by an air turbine taking the energy out and slowing the air, is it not going to require a greater and/or more prolonged push to move the air out of the way of the car i.e. aren't the car drivers going to increase the amount of petrol used to drive along that motorway?
Wouldn't it be more efficient to put that fuel in the train and save on the costs of setting up the turbines and maintaining them?
In response to "Hmmmm..."
In answer to the "Hmmm..." poster -
It doesn't matter if he put the email address on the website, or Transcom got his email address because he had emailed a list (from Nominet or anywhere else) that Transcom (or an associated company) happened to have been subscribed to. The law does not allow:
1. spam to be sent to any email address you happen to be able find; or
2. spam to be sent to someone just because you have have had some contact with them through work.
There is an exemption that allows businesses to send emails where that person has previously had contact with you as a customer and you meet various other requirements.
- Product round-up Coming clean: Ten cordless vacuum cleaners
- Vulture at the Wheel Ford's B-Max: Fiesta-based runaround that goes THUNK
- Worstall @ the Weekend BIG FAT Lies: Porky Pies about obesity
- Yahoo! blames! MONSTER! email! OUTAGE! on! CUT! CABLE! bungle!
- 'Snoopers' Charter IS DEAD', Lib Dems claim as party waves through IP address-matching