Latest blog post is Misleading Nominet Members

I wanted to write this blog post because I happened to head over to AcornDomains for a quick catch up, and what I read was a bit of a concern. I saw people buying into a narrative that I don't believe is true. A lot of these people are my friends, and I believe they need a quick heads up on a few things. I'm concerned that has gone from a small group of members (I was originally one) trying to raise an issue, into what is now a front for a personal vendetta by 1-2 people to be used to attack Nominet and specifically a small number of staff members there.

I doubt that this will make a lot of friends but believe me, this needs to be said.

What's so Misleading in Weighted Voting's Statement?

A recent statement on the website said the following:

“(2) Subscriptions – Nominet has not had the power to charge subscriptions since August 1997. Nominet accepts it has been acting outside its powers since then and also lost a court case on this.”


Have Nominet Said That?

I have never seen or heard anyone at Nominet say this. Nominet have not said that they have been acting outside of their powers in relation to subscriptions. The author is deliberately confusing two different issues to infer that Nominet have admitted they are wrong on Subscriptions - they haven't.

The person writing this statement knows this fully. He’s worded this to provoke members into an emotional response.


Did Nominet Lose A Court Case On Subscriptions?

Nominet have not lost a court case on this, as they said they weren't aware of the claim. A default judgement was issued against them for not responding to the claim within 28 days, Nominet are challenging this.

Everyone knows that an online claim goes through a bulk processing centre. As a default Judgement, I don't believe that a Judge's eye will have ever seen this claim.

That’s not the point of the paragraph in question though, the point of said paragraph is to make readers believe that a Judge gave a verdict against Nominet on the merits of the case - this is deliberate deception by

Who are trying to deceive? You, the members, that’s who.

When making these types of statements, running within an inch of crossing over into outright lying territory, is not good enough. There is a duty to be absolutely candid with Nominet members about what's taken place.

The author has shown no concerns though.

Surely, this can’t be deliberate deception on behalf of’s author? Well, read on.

Who are trying to deceive?

You, the members, that’s who.

When making these types of statements, running within an inch of crossing over into outright lying territory is not good enough. There is a duty to be absolutely candid with Nominet members about what's taken place. The author has shown no concerns though.

Surely it’s not a deliberate deception on behalf of’s author? Well read on.

What is started as a noble cause around 12 months ago. I signed it; as far as I recall it was something that would ask Nominet’s board to check to see if they had things right with regards the articles. However, since I signed that document, a number of things have happened.

1 - Nominet's Responded

Nominet responded with their own legal advice. I for one believe their legal advice. OK, I would have preferred to see what they asked their barrister, but it is what it is.

2 - Nominet Says WeightedVoting's Alternative Is Unlawful

Nominet have stated that’s own preferred method of resolution is unlawful. have never had a legal opinion on their own preferred method of resolution. Why would they not have done that? Surely if they are going to offer a solution, it’s their responsibility to have it legally checked? They haven’t. Even if Nominet’s articles are unlawful, it doesn’t automatically mean that is lawful.

Nominet have come out and said that "One Member One Vote" is specifically prohibited in the company articles. If so, and it does check out, WeightedVoting's alternative is dead in the water.

3 - Nominet's Made Concessions

Nominet have responded in a number of ways, acknowledging there are issues and offering solutions to bring things into compliance via a number of measures. The 3% cap on members voting the articles through is a massive show of faith in the membership. I had heard that the board could try and go for a 10% cap, which meant it could have been steamrollered through by top members. I don’t know if that was possible, but if it was, that was a smart thing the board did by declining to do so. They would have won the battle but started a war.

This board is different from any other board I have ever seen at Nominet. I have met a number of these people and I’ll personally throw whatever credibility I have to say that the CEO and the team are 100% trustworthy.

4 - I've Seen The Lies First Hand

The biggest change for me was that over the last 6 months, I have become aware of just what a complete lunatic and fantasist the’s spokesman is. I’m referring to Solicitor Jim Davies.

I’m just lost for words with regards what I have witnessed. Take a look at some of these:



To make it look like he was the brains behind a large DRS I was involved in – he started his own DRS against my business and bizarrely misremembered a phone call where he imagined that I gave him a 1/3 if I won the DRS. Luckily for me I had recorded the phone call to counter this deception. There were so many aspects to this which would have made it utterly ridiculous if things had happened like he said. Such as: Why would he have let me complete the DRS myself? Alarm bells of dishonesty are already starting to chime.

There is a lot that went on with this DRS, it deserves its own thread when I get some time. Nobody would believe what took place.


The Continued DRS Deception

Whilst I do tend to accept that Jim didn't know that his business partner had lied to work his way into an agreement…

Knowing that his partner had lied, and been given evidence of their deception, he still continued with the attempt to obtain the domain name and continue the DRS. If you know your partner has lied, and you try to capitalise off the back of that lie – then, you know what, you are just as dishonest. He had at least 2 months from the time he was given 100% proof of the lie to shut down the DRS claim, he didn’t. What does that say to you?


High Court's View Of Mr Davies

A High Court Judge wrote the below about him when he was trying to pull a dishonest fast one over CitiGroup.

The full finding can be read here

These are the snippets that are relevant to character.


Threatening Nominet

After losing the first DRS where he claimed a contract breach to give him the rights he needed to claim, he then switched tactics and claimed to Nominet that “front of centre” of his DRS against was his trademark application. A Trademark Application is at the front and centre of a DRS complaint? By a so-called DRS Expert?

You have to be fecking kidding me!

Which idiot puts a Trademark Application at the front and Centre of a complaint? Then asks Nominet to suspend the DRS process until he goes and gets a Trademark and then starts to threaten them by informing them that if they don’t suspend the DRS process, he may raise it with the High Court and it wouldn’t look good for them. WTF?

Those who know me know that I’m not joking, all that happened. Seriously, I thought he was one step away from quoting the Magna Carta. The guy is not a full shilling.


Rumour That He's Been Banned By Nominet

He’s been banned by Nominet from attending any further events or meetings. I don’t know what happened but I do know it wasn’t because of his views and Nominet haven’t just silenced a critic.

I realise people may think Nominet have just silenced a critic, but let me just put it this way, Nominet were suing me in the High Court around a decade ago, and they still didn’t ban me from any events. If something has rattled their cage, it’s serious. For them to do this against a Solicitor, they must be sure of what they’ve done and why they’ve done it.

Like I said, I don't know the ins and outs of it.

I had heard that he said he wished that he recorded the call that sparked the incident. Let me just address this here, he did record that call. In May, as our business relationship was breaking down, he downloaded a call recording app in order to record me on the phone. It wasn’t an issue, record what you want of me. But the point is, that he knew how to download a call recording app, he knew how to use it, he made a call that he knew Nominet wouldn’t record as standard. He probably tried to entrap them and they didn’t bite, but he claims he didn’t have that call recording app on his phone at the time – that’s BS. The call played out exactly as Nominet said it did, and he knows it.

Yet his followers still think he's telling the truth? 

There must be over 30 examples like this, I could go on and on about all of this, but I’ll leave the examples here.

There must be over 30 examples like this, I could go on and on about all of this, but I’ll leave the examples here.

Back To The Main Point Of This Blog Post

In my opinion, Jim is now De Facto leader of It’s his vehicle to attack Nominet and its staff. That’s all it now is, it’s about him getting vengeance on Nominet for how they “wronged” him in the past.

Recent posts on Acorn domains show all the classic signs of people being groomed to go and do his bidding. A lot of these people are my friends, I owe it to a lot of them to offer an alternative suggestion. Take it from me, I was once right in the middle of all this.

I get it; I get why Jim Davies appears credible to most of you. You are convinced Nominet is out to do xyz and high up Nominet staff are evil etc. You feel like you are powerless, you feel like nobody is representing you. Then comes along a Solicitor, someone legally minded who quotes things that impress lay minded people like ourselves, and he’s willing to help us. Why wouldn’t people find that appealing?

Well, all I’ll say is this: what do Nominet members need protection from? Who’s convinced you that you need protection from Nominet?

Arrrrr, the same guy that’s offering to be the saviour? The more you listen to him, the more you need him, the more you need him, the more you listen to him.

See where this is going? These are classical grooming tactics.

If you have a problem with Nominet, just call them and ask them. They are literally 2 minutes away during work hours, you can speak to just about anyone there that you want to.

I won't try to tell you how to vote in the Article changes vote, but before you vote, try to get as many sides as possible if you have problems with them. 

Edit 27/09/23

I don't think this needed to be said, but I just wanted to clarify that I don't believe there is an intention to deceive from any Nominet member who added their name to the list back in October 2022. I know most of them and they wouldn't knowingly become involved in anything like that.

Recent posts on the website are not shared around the signatories for approval before they are released. 

Write comments...
You are a guest
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.

Be the first to comment.

Related Articles

New Blog Section

New Blog Section