Monday, 29 July 2013

Check Mate!

On 29/07/13 11:00, Darren Scott wrote:
Mr Kennard,

The domain "titanic.co.uk" is owed not by you but by a limited company for which you are shareholder and director.  If you wish to processed you'll need to have them raise the matter as a limited company.
Thank you - finally! Now I see your mistake.

The domain titanic.co.uk is registered by Dedicated Programs as you can
see from the Nominet whois data.

I am not owner nor director of Dedicated Programs. I do not work for
Dedicated Programs. My connection with Dedicated Programs is as a customer.

I, personally, purchase email services from Dedicated Programs. This is
a simple matter of fact which I can easily prove to the court as I have
the latest bill from Dedicated Programs for the email services on the
email address adrian@titanic.co.uk. The bill is addressed to me
personally at my home address.

I am the subscriber for the email services on the email address
adrian@titanic.co.uk and I subscribe as an individual. I am the
individual subscriber and I am acting in this claim and any court case
as an individual recipient of the email in question.

Now that you see your mistake I trust that you will:-

1. Concede that you are in breach of section 22 of the regulations
2. Cencede that I am entitled to claim damages as per section 30 of the
regulations
3. Apologise for accusing me of instigating a scam or a fraud.

I look forward to your setting the damages claim promptly, unless you
believe you have some other defence.

-- Adrian Kennard Individual Subscriber
Update reply:
Then you might want to get the registrant information updated!
It is almost as if he thinks that the domain registrant is relevant.

7 comments:

  1. I am hoping that titanic.co.uk addresses might soon become the least spammed domain in the country, ty Adrian.

    Imagine that huge irony if spammers are still web crawling and they pick up the Rev's address from this thread and add it to their,l lists!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting response, I find this whole process you're going through fascinating, you could end up making a big difference to UK based spam.

    I guess this makes this particular case more complicated, and leaves me wondering about all sorts of other questions:

    1) I guess they could claim you're in violation of your contract with nominet to supply correct details perhaps (do you have to essentially sign up to nominet's latest T&Cs when renewing a domain? I guess the pre-1996 T&Cs were very different) I don't entirely see how this would help their defence though.

    2) Could they claim they made a genuine mistake as a result of the incorrect information on nominet's database, which it was your responsibility to ensure is correct, and hence no damages are due for past emails?

    I guess, technically, they can report this to nominet and you would then be required to correct the details shown on whois, though it's hard to see how this helps their defence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joseph, I think you are falling in to the same trap that he is.

      No - the nominet contact details relate to the domain and nothing to do with the email accounts. After all, whois data for hotmail.com does not list the contact details of individual email users under @hotmail.com email addresses.

      Nominet do not have a database of whether an email address is an individual subscriber, so no, it is unrelated. Nominet details registrants (owner of a domain) not of email users, just as gmail.co.uk is Google Inc and not the @gmail.co.uk individual subscribers.

      Delete
    2. Yep, indeed. I got there eventually, I'm just a bit slow today :-)

      Delete
  3. and of course thinking further, I see how my questions are irrelevant, for the reason you already stated: there's not necessarily a link between a domain registrant and any given email address in that domain, so they would have to show that they somehow believed adrian@ was the address to reach the domain owner and that the domain owner was a business, which would seem near impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looks like your persistence here is paying off.

    Although I do wonder exactly when Mr Scott checked to see if the address was business or private (perhaps after your previous message?) and if he was confused by terms such as “Registrant” and “Registrar”…

    --
    Individual Commentard

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please keep this going, very useful stuff.

    ReplyDelete