Originally a Post made on October 16, 2024 by Mick Dawson and converted by him into a page on the 19th.
Nominet say:- With thousands of domain names registered each week, it’s inevitable that some might cause disagreements. We provide an award-winning Dispute Resolution Service (DRS).
The DRS is a fast, efficient way to resolve UK domain name disputes. The Mediation is private and confidential and will remain that way as far as I am concerned but I can tell everyone that it failed.
Please consider this critique as a continuation of the one began on August 8th. The paragraphs highlighted in blue have been ignored in Mr Renwick’s reply to my response. If there was only one it could have been an oversight but there are six.
Mr A Renwick’s response to DRS26876 19-Aug-24.
How do you reply to the response?
For Reference – North East Maritime Trust (NEMT)
Northumbrian Fishing Heritage Trust (NFHT)
I note that Mr Dawson’s reply contains ten paragraphs which I will respond to as follows –
There are 11 or 12 paragraphs:-
1. Re Nominet advice to transfer nemaritimetrust.co.uk from TSO host.
Our NEMT most recent payment details (in my name) are attached 1* for your information. However, it is true to say that Mr Dawson (a previous Trustee of NFHT) and member of this organisation NEMT, was trusted to administer the above website. He also volunteered to pay for the website domain at that time. Website and domain, trusteeship of NFHT is irrelevant but his response is basically true. I resigned my Trusteeship of NFHT to make it clear that I was speaking as a member of NEMT when Mr Renwick and others claimed I was not one of their members.
2. During and after the effects of Covid19 which proved to be extensive and included my election as Chairperson of this NEMT Charity. It is fair to say that Mr Dawson took exception to that and decisions which had to be made at board level to make our charity more financially viable and more inclusive, for all. Unfortunately this also affected his part in the running of NFHT and its more recent Website nfht.co.uk which actually uses the same front page! It was unreasonable to say that I took exception to the election of Mr Renwick to the Chair of NEMT as I had no part in his election and as both NEMT and NFHT share the same ideals and funds it is perfectly reasonable to use the same front page.
3. As a result of the necessary changes which had to be made to nemaritimetrust.co.uk website and its content despite a previous agreement to transfer administration to me named in 2020 see 2* attached. Mr Dawson took exception and decided to regain control of the website to vent his anger about the changes being made. I had assumed that Mr Renwick and I shared the same views about the way the Trusts should be run but it quickly became apparent that he had betrayed my trust in him when most of the history them since the NFHT gained charitable status had been deleted and I took away his right to edit the Website. Not venting anger but a simple device to stop further damage to a Website that I had maintained for nearly seven years. The illegal use of trademark ‘North East Maritime Trust’ the incorrect and in many cases malicious content which is regularly updated and detrimental to the running of this charity, the malicious inclusion of Trustee names including my own. ‘North East Maritime Trust’ is not a trade mark and here is nothing incorrect in any of the regular updates and none are malicious. When Mr Renwick has broadcast misinformation, it is not unreasonable to correct it and whether the co-respondents are NEMT or NFHT Trustees is not a material consideration.
4 and 5. I wasn’t aware of any attempt or impending change to transfer registrar or disrupt our website. If I was it would have been stopped.
1
Para 4 says:- In March I discovered that I could no longer access the website and as I was not able to persuade the provider, TSOHost to return it to me, its rightful owner so I contacted your office and (we) worked out that the best way to to regain control of the site was to change providers and they were very helpful especially as I had already found another provider, IONOS.
The providers TSOHost had been conned by Mr Renwick into changing the administrator of the Website from me to him and they would not undo the amendment saying that Mr Renwick and I should resolve our differences before they would act. That was clearly impossible so I decided to cut my losses and ask Nominet to switch providers.
Para 5 says:- When I had given them evidence that I, Mr M Dawson residing in Amble, owned the domain name nemaritimetrust.co.uk, all I needed to do was to pay the £12 fee and the switch was accomplished on the 3rd of April, please see the attached file, ChangeofRegistrar-03-Apr-24.pdf.
Mr Renwick assumed that because he had managed to replace me as the author of the website he had gained possession of the domain name nemaritimetrust.co.uk but he had done nothing of the sort.
6. Concerns. Yes Many, The free use of words such as ‘Fraudulent, misrepresentation and criminal offense’ abound and are disruptive, nothing can be further from the truth as far as this is concerned, and a remedy can be found, simply transfer, as requested, many times.
Concerns were raised in my 7th paragraph, while in my 6th, I explained:- “As far as I can see, there is simply, nothing to dispute. A request was made of your office to switch service provider and it was done in the first week of April without any trouble and I certainly did not need Mr Renwick’s permission to ask them to make the switch.
The words “Fraudulent, misrepresentation and criminal offence” occur in one document from me to Mr Renwick and Co. in NEMT in January 2013 and on its receipt the debt was promptly paid.
7. See attached email regarding the supposed transferring of the website into my name at NEMT and TSO Host receipts for payment of the website and its hosting. Again everyone concerned with the future of this organisation is very upset at the content being displayed and regularly updated which is now out of our control or ability to question.
My concerns in paragraph 7:- “What concerns me, is Mr Renwick’s charge that it is I that was abusing the system when it was clearly he who was causing the abuse and wasting both yours and my time by completing the form that the Dispute Resolution Service Team were bound to consider. I repeat, it was he not I, who sent in the completed form to the Dispute Resolution Service on July 29th.
8. As said the website data was old and urgently needed work to update its content, mailboxes useless etc. But, never to delete.
In paragraph 8, Nominet was told that there was no evidence:- Please note he is the sole complainant, there are no legal proceedings in connection with the domain name and more importantly, he has provided no evidence to back his claim that that I have been making ‘personal defamatory attacks include malicious and incorrect information’ against him. He cannot provide any evidence because there is none.
What did he mean by the ‘website data was old’ and again I can only repeat that there is no evidence that I have been making ‘personal defamatory attacks on him.
2
9 and 10. The use and accusation of the words in combination with ‘DRS26876’ is simply untrue. And, what does ‘Hold the Peace until the 19th’ actually mean, it sounds quite threatening to me? It may sound threatening but the 19th was the date given by the DRS Mediator. The actual threat was made by the Chair of the NEMT on 18th June 2024.
After I had responded to Mr Renwick’s claim that I had abused the system for registering Domain Names, on the 29th July, I was offered and accepted a mediation service which was private and confidential and had a closing date of the 19th Aug and it appears that there had been no response from Mr Renwick by that date.
In paragraph 9, I say, I logged into Nominet this morning and can confirm that nemaritimetrust.co.uk is still with me and that it expires on 22-May-27 so no worries there but it’s become obvious that Mr Renwick was trying to use your good office to hide his misconduct in managing to rewrite the history of the Trust for which he is responsible which in turn raises the question and why did he want to do that?
The question is answered in paragraph 10:- “It is money and or favours of course and I believe the misinformation he gave in completing the form that gave rise to DRS26876 would be better described as fraudulent misrepresentation and a criminal offence.”
Paragraph 11 is self explanatory:- The law has more important things to do at the moment with the rioters etc. and it can wait but please feel free to use this as a good example of how valuable a domain name can be and how far fraudsters are prepared to go to claim possession of them.
Paragraph 12: I promise to hold the peace until the 19th, i.e. until I saw the Chair of NEMT’s response to the mediation offered by the DRS.
Finally, This situation has been caused by missed opportunities to rectify simple arguments or disagreements which could have been discussed, but instead has led to Mr Dawson losing his long term membership of NEMT which he could have objected to as in 3* This has also led to him losing his Trusteeship and membership of NFHT. I offered my resignation as a Trustee of NFHT to the other Trustees in April and it was accepted on the 17th but I am still a member of the Trust. I have not resigned from NEMT and would like to know on what grounds the Chair of NEMT says that I am no longer a member of NEMT.
It has also given rise to concerns about where all this is going, this organisation’s future and my own mental health as Chairperson. Concerns about Course of Conduct, fixations about me in particular and malicious communications all come into question. There are no malicious communications. Please see [none provided] below, and it was his decision to apply to the Dispute Resolution Service, not mine.
However, There is a way, simply transfer nemaritimetrust.co.uk back to our new Host – KUALO as requested many times. If not, disable or stop any further use of the website. I made a request of Nominet to change my Provider to INIOS which was done smoothly and without trouble and the transfer was completed on the 8th April. Why would I wish to transfer a site that had been running for a decade with hardly a complaint to yet another provider Kualo on behalf of somebody who has falsely accused me of being a thief?
I hope this answers your questions and helps to find a resolution.
One can see from his responses, that Mr Renwick has not been straightforward at all and he has been planning the alternative org.uk site for some time and therefore needed to do away with the opposition, co.uk before he could progress further. Please see Whois lookup for 18th June.
3
Where do we go from here? Mick Dawson, 16-Oct-24
Are there any web pages that support this dispute?
[none provided] [end of submission]