Posts by Pali Gap 19 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Aug 2007
This makes perfect sense to me. But... I get the impression that this view is not a done-deal yet. There are I believe some tax authorities that are looking at trying to get their capital gains penny-worth on the crypto-to-crypto trade. It strikes me that would be a nightmare to account for and also to audit. So let's hope our dear HMRC don't try going down that route. After all "tax does not have to be taxing" (as they used to say).
Nominet are bad for the UK domain space. Their obsessions are empire building and "compliance", all offset by virtue signalling. All those things cost money, hence the price hike.
In recent years their "improvements" have all served to drive out small "corner shop" domain registrars in favour of the large supermarket type - the type that are better able to handle the silly tick-box bureaucracy of their compliance regime, but provide an impersonal service to their customers.
Despite Nominet's wealth and resources, they still can't attend to the basics and get them right. Two examples: Emails from their automaton are classified as spam by Google as they "violate Google's standards for sending email". And my browser (running Firefox latest on Ubuntu) turns its nose up at at Nominet's "secure" login page at https://secure.nominet.org.uk/. Perhaps that's because Qualys SSL Labs report that they are deploying a dodgy intermediate TLS/SSL certificate with a weak signature that needs upgrading to SHA2. Pathetic - especially when they self-certify themselves as "keeping the UK namespace safe". Yeah, right.
Nominet's "justification" for their price hike is pure comedy gold. Apparently raising your price is how you respond to "an increasingly competitive domain environment". And there was I thinking all the while that you increase your competitiveness by *lowering* your price! My bad - but then what do I know about running a cosy, unregulated monopoly?
You see the *force* of the argument Sirius Lee makes here? "Knick-knacks", "selling... to drivel blogs", the implication that critics lack "the wit and ability to accommodate the change".
I wonder what you sell online Sirius Lee? By your standards I may be lacking in wit and ability, but I am a Perl programmer with a product used by folks globally for over a decade. What little *wit* I may have tells me it is no longer worth the candle selling into the EU. My ability will be expended in programming a filter to turn away EU punters. Is that what the EU is supposed to encourage?
When you say "..it was announced in 2005 so its not like there has not been time to get with the programme", perhaps you missed my previous post about how neither of my LTD businesses have received any communication on this whatsoever? I take you are in business selling digitally to the EU? Please detail the official notifications you received of this change.
Andrus Ansip’s says: “Given that this change was adopted six years ago, member states should have helped businesses to prepare". The complacent and patronising Vince Cable has said: "The changes to VAT on digital products is not new or sudden - the change was agreed in 2008 and we've done a lot to communicate it to businesses. Regardless, the majority of UK micro-businesses will not be affected."
https://www.change.org/en-GB/decision-makers/vince-cable-mp
Apparently some bright spark in the Treasury, who's experience of the digital world is probably limited to selling their Ray-Ban's on eBay or buying gentlemen's Tonic Sculpture hair styling product on Amazon, thinks that everyone sells through a portal anyway. So hardly anyone is affected.
I run a VAT company, and also a quite different LTD company that is below the VAT threshold. Neither company has EVER been informed of the new rules. Like most folks, the first we heard of it was via the media. In fact, just as recently as November we had a letter from HM Revenue & Customs "Local Compliance CCG" (I know, sounds like the Stasi). It was titled "Education and support for importers and exporter". Not a single word in the latter about the EU VAT thing and VATMOSS.
"...a job with Deloitte & Touche and then Thomson Reuters, specializing in acquisitions and ventures".
Could it be that perhaps Nominet may be looking to ditch its "not for profit" status? From April 2009:
"A major review of Nominet's governance has asked members to consider whether it should give up its not-for-profit status." http://www.notagreatplacetobe.org.uk/about-nominet/nominet-notforprofit/
Of course Nominet, like the EU, tend to keep re-visiting an issue until they get the result they want!
"It's too early to tell what areas of growth will be best for Nominet" says Russell Haworth, walking in the door.
But why growth? At least as an end in itself? Nominet is supposed to be a "not for profit"! It is without doubt the dash for growth that has created the farce of the dot UK name. This new domain type is being marketed by Nominet with this kind of nonsense:
"A .uk domain name tells your customers, visitors or supporters that you believe in a safe and trusted online experience, whether you are developing a business, running a charitable organisation or writing a blog online.". Really? Not!
Mr C Hill says "Are they running a business or a protection racket?". I'd say they're just focused on building their empire. It has to be said that, so far, that's been pretty successful, and their coffers are overflowing. As a result they can indulge themselves in vanity projects such as the "Nominet Trust". They even gain VIP entry to the "green blob":
"Nominations are open globally, and can cover projects using technology in a wide array of social problems, from education, human rights abuses, and health to *climate change*“ (Nominet Trust, My emphasis).
The world is changing of course. With everything becoming available - dot butcher, dot baker, dot candlestickmaker, and all stations inbetween - what room for "growth" and empire-building remains for Nominet? No doubt the outgoing Lesley Cowley had seen the writing on the wall. Good riddance I say.
If the follow up to "Twenty Twelve" had been based on Nominet instead of the BBC ("W1A"), I think it would have worked perfectly. This week Nominet have produced their marketing materials (from a "not-for-profit"?) for the new ".UK brand". I cannot believe it is not from PR company "Perfect Curve": http://youtu.be/FD1-Gtg5j5M.
"Introducing the new dot UK logo...because our customers thought the "share" symbol, used across the web appeals to a new tech-savvy audience. The circle represents an online journey, starting from the dot. It also represents the world and the UK's place within it. The colour represents self-expression, new thinking, and new horizons. Some of the words customers used to describe it were 'pioneering', 'driving', 'connecting' and 'sharing'" etc. etc.
Nominet: Too much money and too much time on their hands.
Yes, I agree with the dogfood concept. I have given up on Yahoo mail mainly because when I open it (after reboot) it locks my PC up for a solid minute or two. Unless I'm the only one with this issue, Yahoo staff would soon twig to the problem if they tried to use their own product. Me I'm no Marissa fan. I've abandoned both Yahoo groups & mail now because of the "improvements".
WorldPay are NOT PCI DSS compliant!!
"The Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) takes data security and compliance with its many legal and regulatory obligations extremely seriously. The WorldPay payment systems are located in RBS Data Centres that comply with the stringent policies and procedures of RBS and have been designed to the highest standards that the Bank’s regulators and legislators expect.
As you may be aware, WorldPay has been involved in a major project to replace the existing system and migrate to a new and enhanced platform. As part of this project, all work necessary to comply with the PCI DSS rules is therefore being directed at the new system and as a result WorldPay will remain 'In Progress' for PCI DSS compliance until work on the new system and migration of customers is complete.
RBS maintains in regular and open dialogue with both VISA and MasterCard, sharing progress reports and updating plans, ensuring, as the enforcers of Scheme regulations, that they are up to date and aware of the project’s developing position towards compliance and endorsing of our plans."
I have a written ruling from the Information Commissioner that an email address is NOT personal data (unless the part before the domain name is your exact name e.g. j.alfred.prufrock@googlemail.com).
So MOST email addresses do not count as personal data and can be harvested and abused at will.
Counter-intuitive? Welcome to the new scholasticism of the ICO! ("How many angels can dance on the head of a pin"). They're confused; We're confused; The bad guys run rings around them.
It doesn't surprise me that the ICO's idea of "personal data" should raise eyebrows at the EU. The ICO is paying scholastic games with the definition of personal data - so much so that their concept is now quite counter-intuitive. For example I bet most folks would be surprised to learn that their email address is almost certainly NOT "personal data" by the ICO's lights.
I'd say the ICO are losing the plot and spending too much time worrying how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And it leads to some bizarre conclusions...
I think most people (the people who pay the piper but don't seem to call the tune), would assume that their email address is protected by the ICO and DPA as "private data". But they'd be wrong! I have had a written ruling from the ICO that an email address is NOT "personal data" - unless it is made up of your full names (initials won't cut it). That means that anyone with a mind to harvest email addresses, or sell on the email addresses in their database to the bad guys, have nothing to fear from the ICO. But then it's not the bad guys who DO fear the ICO, it's honest "data controllers" who have cause for concern!
Heavens! What a simple world you live in. One where you think it your place to remind people of the patently obvious; One where you think people have never heard of warranties; One where they won't know what number to dial unless you patronisingly point it out to them. You aren't an Evesham ex-support employee by any chance?
Your basic mistake is to assume I did NOT push Evesham on the warranty issue (I had on-site warranty and, when pushed very, very hard they met their obligation on this. It's just they did not have the competence to fix it). Or to assume I did not fix anything myself (not that I should have to of course).
I guess you know the old adage about ASSUME?
Do you know anything about Quality Management? It is not about shoving rubbish out on the market and waiting for the punters to shout to get the problem fixed. Nor is it about falling back on your small print. Quality is built in up front, for example by sourcing XP certified components if you're shipping an XP certified machine. That's one thing Evesham didn't do for example. When I gave them the specific hardware error messages they performed the knee-jerk "re-install Windows" routine. They just weren't interested. So in this case I researched the error messages for myself, discovered the hardware and driver compatibilty, fixed it and carried on. But you see that was just one element in one long, sad story.
You don't know the half of it, so have the decency to spare me your glib platitudes.
..."warranty"
Perhaps if you were in your default sober state you would be charitable enough to credit folks with a bit more savvy. No doubt too you would twig that it may not be appropriate here to document all the sad twists and turns of my Evesham woes. But, no, "warranty" didn't cut it.
Around 2002 I splashed out on an Evesham top end model. It was rubbish - cynically assembled with incompatible non-certified hardware. The support was very, very arrogant and incompetent. I think they thought they were the bees knees. After three months of blue screens I put their PC in the loft where it still sits gathering dust, though I still use the monitor. So I take some considerable satisfaction in seeing their demise.
The ICO love to posture rather than bite.
A while back I complained to the UK Information Commissioner over a privacy issue relating to my email address with Orange. The email address in question comprised my initials (i.e abcd@orange.net).
To my great surprise the ICO ruled that an email address like this could not be considered to be "personal data". Therefore, they claimed, their hands were tied (or they preferred to "sit on them" I suspect). I was told that "personal data" is defined in the DPA as "information that identifies a living individual" and my email address failed this test (although I find that claim completely counter-intuitive. If you have my email address you have a direct route to my desktop). Had my email address been of the form "firstname.secondname.surname@orange.net" I understand they might have been prepared to take action on my behalf.
Of course only a tiny proportion of email addresses are of the form full.name@some.server. So at a stroke this ruling excludes the vast majority of personal email addresses from data protection regulations!
That's good news for spammers and email list traders - bad news for the rest of us poor suckers, eh?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
