Part 1 was a post made on the 8th August.
Mr A Renwick complained to Nominet, 29-July-24, that I had been abusing the system that they have been operating for some time, to quote: “We want to create a world which is more connected, inclusive and secure. For 25 years we have been operating at the heart of the internet infrastructure as proud guardians of the UK domain name registry” and as I had not abused the system in any way I felt I had to explain in no uncertain terms why, in the case of the domain name nemaritimetrust.co.uk, the system had not been abused by me.
I explained this in an email of the 8th Aug. to Nominet and then posted it as DRS 26867: Part 1 and this follow-up will be made a page for reference because WordPress allows such a variation in posts and it will deal with Mr Renwick’s response the points I made on the 8th.
Before I start I should say that Nominet offered to mediate when they had received his response but it appears that mediation has failed through no fault of neither Nominet nor myself.
In Private:-
1. Thank you for the copy of the dispute raised by Mr A Renwick of Fisherman’s Workshop, Wapping St, South Shields and the covering letter giving instructions on how to deal with his request/demand that you transfer the domain nemaritimetrust.co.uk to a different service provider from the one where it is currently administered. Please treat this letter as my response.
2. The domain had been registered with Nominet under my name for over ten years and as the registration was about to expire, 22nd May, I had to act quickly to counter Mr Renwick’s false claim that the domain had been transferred to him when I gave him access to the website of the same name in October 2020.
3. I soon discovered that he had deleted most of the history North East Maritime Trust from the time that NEMT gained its charitable status in February 2007 until late 2019 and revoked his permission to prevent him from making any further amendments to a site that had, until October 2020, reflected the history, not only of NEMT but that of the Northumbrian Fishing Heritage Trust as well.
4. In March (2024) 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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
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.
8. 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.
9. 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?
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.
11. 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 can be and how far fraudsters are prepared to go to claim possession of them.
12. I promise to hold the peace until the 19th.