Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:39 pm

wserra wrote:
Determinator wrote:What's this got to do with bailiff feuds? Identity Protect Limited are not a bailiff company, they provide domain privacy services as part of the 123Reg and GoDaddy group of companies.


Determinator - Hercule was not referring to this conversation, but rather to a flame war that took place just over a year ago. The protagonists were not Q regulars, but apparently two dueling groups of layman "legal advisors" (bailiff issues) who have disrupted numerous boards with their personal feuds.

That's why I gave "Tuco" a quick timeout - he was one of the worst, and returned after a year only to instigate.

Ah, I see... there seems to be a bit of bad blood against some other people who are not parties in this dispute by the sounds of it, and, having seen a couple of posts made by Tuco this evening, I must say they were quite nasty and very personal, aimed at people he obviously knows quite well. He seems to have hijacked this thread for his own personal issues...

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby wserra » Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:45 pm

Determinator wrote:having seen a couple of posts made by Tuco this evening, I must say they were quite nasty and very personal, aimed at people he obviously knows quite well.


I'm Wes, and he doesn't know me at all. I'm just keeping him from flaming certain other people by using this board. He doesn't like that, and displays his pique in the manner of a third-grader. This is how they behave on their own board, where they lack adult supervision.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

King Lud
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:18 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby King Lud » Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:09 pm

King Lud wrote:Oh God, not these bunch of pillocks again! All we need now is Tuco to come in and bore us all into oblivion.


Called it!!

It's worrying to think that those people are actually fully grown adults. It's like looking at the ramblings of a bunch of 10 year olds in the playground.

beaujest
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby beaujest » Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:52 pm

wserra wrote:
Determinator wrote:having seen a couple of posts made by Tuco this evening, I must say they were quite nasty and very personal, aimed at people he obviously knows quite well.


I'm Wes, and he doesn't know me at all. I'm just keeping him from flaming certain other people by using this board. He doesn't like that, and displays his pique in the manner of a third-grader. This is how they behave on their own board, where they lack adult supervision.


Can I just offer my gratitude to everyone who has contributed to this thread, I have learned so much about a subject that was alien to me...I never even knew who played what part in the world of registering a simple domain. I am staring to feel 'empowered' with what I have learned from all of this. Thank you Quatloosians.

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Hercule Parrot » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:54 am

Determinator wrote:Ah, I see... there seems to be a bit of bad blood against some other people who are not parties in this dispute by the sounds of it, and, having seen a couple of posts made by Tuco this evening, I must say they were quite nasty and very personal, aimed at people he obviously knows quite well. He seems to have hijacked this thread for his own personal issues...


He's not the only one. As Wes says above, there is a travelling circus of squabbling idiots involved in this. And they swarm into whichever messageboard is suffering their presence, as is happening now here (again). Bennison's Bragging, Bullying & Bullshit Bureau versus a motley crew of his rivals, victims and critics.

The key characteristic is that they're all continuing a prolonged and Byzantine feud, mostly based on accusations without evidence. We don't approve of this on Q. We like to see court papers or independent media reports, rather than relying upon the word of partisan posters.

Which brings us back to your comment about Identity Protect. By the rules of Q, you should post some evidence for your allegations. If you can't or won't do that, then it lacks credibility.

This isn't about defamation litigation concerns, Q is a US board packed with lawyers and a UK court order wouldn't override the first amendment. We ask for evidence because we prize facts above gossip.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:46 am

Starting from the end rather than the beginning, GoDaddy/123Reg/Identity Protect Ltd did not contest the disclosure order. How do we know this? We have our friend Ted Striker to thank for that one. The other day, he posted a link to a site on wordpress.com. The links were removed by the mods so I shall not be posting it again. The link was to a page showing a picture of a letter on GoDaddy letterhead dated 15 September, disclosing the registrant's details. On the copy of the letter, the addressee's details had been obscured but not the details of the registrant, which is why the link should not be posted on this board. I'm sure the mods went to the page before deleting the link, otherwise they wouldn't have deleted it.

As for the earlier incident of removing the protection without a court order, well, if there was no court order then there are no court documents. The evidence would be in the way of a screenshot showing the details of the registrant instead of Identity Protect Limited, so we are back to the reason above.

Now you know when you book a flight, you have to tick a box saying you've read and agreed to the T&Cs? Most people just tick the box without reading, but then that's their problem. But when you added privacy to a domain on the 123Reg control panel, you just had to add it to your basket, without having to have agreed to any T&Cs. You would probably expect your details to be disclosed to the police or someone like HMRC if relevant, but not just to anyone who decides to complain. Now if you look at their own T&Cs: https://www.123-reg.co.uk/terms/general ... erms.shtml

123Reg wrote:SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION OF PRIVACY SERVICE

4.1. You acknowledge and agree that We have the absolute right, in Our sole discretion and without any liability to You whatsoever, to suspend or cancel the Privacy Service for each subscribed Domain Name, such that You will then become the Registrant of the Domain Name with all applicable information then showing in the Whois, in certain circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

4.1.1. when required by law, governmental rules or requirements, governmental authorities or a court order; or

4.1.2. when We believe in good faith that such action is required by law; or

4.1.3. in compliance with a legal process served upon Us; or

4.1.4. in order to comply with ICANN and/or applicable Registry rules, policies or procedures; or

4.1.5. to resolve any and all third party claims, whether threatened or made, arising out of Your use of a Domain Name; or

4.1.6. if We believe that You are using the Privacy Service to conceal involvement in illegal, illicit, morally objectionable or harmful activities; or

4.1.7. to protect the integrity and stability of the applicable Domain Name Registry; or

4.1.8. to comply with any Dispute Resolution Policy; or

4.1.9. to avoid any financial loss or legal liability (civil or criminal) on the part of Us, Our parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders, agents, officers, directors and employees; or

4.1.10. if the Domain Name We register on Your behalf violates or infringes a third party’s trademark, trade name or other legal rights.

4.2. You further acknowledge and agree that in the event that We receive a formal complaint, notice of claim in relation to legal proceedings or in relation to a Dispute Resolution Policy, the subject matter of which is a Domain Name or which relates to Your use of the Services, We have the right to suspend the Privacy Service and Your identity will be revealed in the Whois as Registrant until and subject to the resolution of such matter.


The question is, how many people have actually read the above? Whenever you add privacy, they should present you with a very noticeable pop up window with all the above, and ask you to confirm having read it. The don't, and, for all we know, they could well have changed those T&Cs after the latest incidents, we just don't know.

Note how it says "formal compliant, notice of claim". That's miles away from a court order! Anyone can submit a "formal complaint". As for "notice of claim", what exactly does that mean? A threat of litigation? Anyone can send one of those too.

It turns out their so-called "privacy service" is as good as a chocolate teapot! But how many people would be aware of that when they add it to their domains?

It used to be the case all you could do was a "whois opt-out". In plain English, that means hiding your address, but still showing your name on the public database. This is an option for "non trading individuals". Which brings us back to Nominet, who are the ones who impose these rules relating to the domain range under their control, all the .uk domains. So Nominet does not allow registrants to be "ex directory" so to speak, which, in turn, created a gap in the market for the so-called "privacy" services. It all looks very cozy between Nominet and 123Reg/GoDaddy and their dormant sister company Identity Protect Limited.

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:06 am

beaujest wrote:
wserra wrote:
Determinator wrote:having seen a couple of posts made by Tuco this evening, I must say they were quite nasty and very personal, aimed at people he obviously knows quite well.


I'm Wes, and he doesn't know me at all. I'm just keeping him from flaming certain other people by using this board. He doesn't like that, and displays his pique in the manner of a third-grader. This is how they behave on their own board, where they lack adult supervision.


Can I just offer my gratitude to everyone who has contributed to this thread, I have learned so much about a subject that was alien to me...I never even knew who played what part in the world of registering a simple domain. I am staring to feel 'empowered' with what I have learned from all of this. Thank you Quatloosians.

That is truly shocking! And they think they have the right to forcibly bring down another website just because their actions are being put under scrutiny! So they believe they can say what they want about anyone else but if someone tries to do something along the same lines, they should be silenced via an injunction! They also probably didn't have an understanding of how injunctions work, an interim injunction doesn't last forever. Maybe Mr Bennison expected Nominet to just ignore the whole thing and keep the domain suspended. He clearly doesn't understand why that wouldn't have been an option, not if they value their business...

The big problem we have here is that people such as the above, are able to walk into court and emerge with an order to suspend a domain and bring down a website in a matter of hours, when those emergency applications are clearly not intended for that purpose, but when you need to stop something from happening. In this case, the website had "happened" months earlier!

This sort of thing doesn't get reported by the media, or maybe it would if the site in question had been a business who lost millions and was now suing Nominet, yet people should be aware of this possibility when they choose a domain name. One thing we know is that we'd better steer clear of .uk names, just in case. This comes just in time for the launch of the new .uk domain range. For years, we've had .co.uk but not just .uk, unlike most other countries. We *could* now register all those names we always wanted but were taken 15 or 20 years ago, the question is, in view of all this, should we get a .uk domain? I think not!

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Hercule Parrot » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:20 am

Determinator wrote:It turns out their so-called "privacy service" is as good as a chocolate teapot! .


Seems okay as a casual privacy arrangement for registrants who wish to avoid spamming contacts etc. Perhaps this particular registrant read 'privacy' as 'secrecy', and expected more from the provider than promised.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:27 am

This was posted last year:

Postby aesmith » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:25 am

It resolved to BT ..

If "It" was an IP address, he'd need a Norwich Pharmacal Order before BT was required to disclose the account details.

Nine months on, it looks like anyone can get one of them and that the respondents just bow over and comply without bothering to contest them (or is is just GoDaddy?)

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Hercule Parrot » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:36 am

Determinator wrote:This sort of thing doesn't get reported by the media, or maybe it would if the site in question had been a business who lost millions and was now suing Nominet, yet people should be aware of this possibility when they choose a domain name. One thing we know is that we'd better steer clear of .uk names, just in case.


If the intention is to publish provocative material, goad enemies and avoid identification, it wouldn't be a good idea to rely upon any registration body. None of them are going to fight very hard to cloak the accountability of a registrant in those circumstances.

If someone seriously wants secrecy, then they need to pay a lawyer to register the domain through an offshore shell company, using nominee directors etc.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

daveBeeston
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 274
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 8:57 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby daveBeeston » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:40 am

The one thing that I take from this whole episode is that despite this loss and the now large financial debt that JB is facing he and his followers won't learn from it, they will still insist advice they give is correct and that all other advice is wrong.
As we've seen despite an independent expert laying it out in simple English there is at least one here who claims different and that we are all missing the point.

JB you should learn from this costly error and realise that even if your 100% confident your right when it comes to legal action it's always best to check with a legal professional, had you done so you wouldn't now be facing a £26,000 bill and the embarrassment of taking action against the wrong people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argue with an idiot,they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Bungle
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:26 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Bungle » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:44 am

[Mod deletes restart of Bennison v Harding, something only the participants care about. - WS]
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.

User avatar
Ted Striker
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Ted Striker » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:29 am

Determinator wrote:That is truly shocking! And they think they have the right to forcibly bring down another website just because their actions are being put under scrutiny! So they believe they can say what they want about anyone else but if someone tries to do something along the same lines, they should be silenced via an injunction!


Once more you fail to understand what the problem was. It was not about the content of the site, the criticism, the sniping, the childish comments and so forth. It was the fact that this site, by having the name 'bailiffhelpforum' in its title along with the hundreds of tag words on its pages, was disrupting the google search results often coming before the genuine BHF. This could be confusing to anyone searching for help with bailiffs.

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby longdog » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:39 am

Ted Striker wrote:
Determinator wrote:That is truly shocking! And they think they have the right to forcibly bring down another website just because their actions are being put under scrutiny! So they believe they can say what they want about anyone else but if someone tries to do something along the same lines, they should be silenced via an injunction!


Once more you fail to understand what the problem was. It was not about the content of the site, the criticism, the sniping, the childish comments and so forth. It was the fact that this site, by having the name 'bailiffhelpforum' in its title along with the hundreds of tag words on its pages, was disrupting the google search results often coming before the genuine BHF. This could be confusing to anyone searching for help with bailiffs.


Once more you fail to understand the meaning of the word 'abusive' when referring to domain name registration. I really can't be arsed explaining it all again.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

User avatar
Ted Striker
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Ted Striker » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:42 am

[Mod deletes restart of Bennison v Harding, something only the participants care about. - WS]

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby longdog » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:45 am

Can't we move this personal spat somewhere more appropriate... Like the bin.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Hercule Parrot » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:50 am

And here we are against, a year later the same idiots making the same wild accusations. Why do they think Quatloos should provide a refereed playground for them?

I think it's time to lock the topic and/or put them all on active moderation.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

User avatar
Ted Striker
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Ted Striker » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:54 am

[Mod deletes restart of Bennison v Harding, something only the participants care about. - WS]

rosy
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby rosy » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:56 am

These internecine bailiff help wars are so tedious. Couldn't you all go and argue them somewhere else? Please?

daveBeeston
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 274
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 8:57 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby daveBeeston » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:58 am

Ted its time to realise that your attempting to fight a battle that has already been lost, if i Google bailiff help then Jason's sites appears on page one (below other sites), the other site mentioned in this thread is nowhere to be seen,if I Google bailiff help forum then Jason's site is top of the search with the other site being further down the list.
Anyone looking for help by using those search terms will see Jason's sites linked before the other one, if this other site is impacting on Jason's business it's because people want to know why BHF is wrong again before joining or seeking advice from BHF, it's not because they are confusing the two.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argue with an idiot,they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest