Bounce.co.uk appeal decision

[Whois-Search]

Hope your not going to leave it there Michael ....... The DRS appeal cost you £3000 + Beasty's fee therefore carry on. Go for a Judicial Review !

I think its time we get even with these guys ......

As Nominet said at the meeting the other day www.notnominet.org.uk is perfectly ok.

How about after every DRS case like this we register the "not" version of the domain......

notbounce.co.uk

And on there have the a statement from the "coalition of DRS victims" !

Also as governments ...... i mean Nominet only change policy on the basis of bad press ......... I think everyone should contact Kieren McCarthy with their DRS story. http://www.kierenmccarthy.me.uk

 

[Jac]

Hope your not going to leave it there Michael ....... The DRS appeal cost you £3000 + Beasty's fee therefore carry on. Go for a Judicial Review !

I think its time we get even with these guys ......

Which guys? Nominet or the DRS Experts?

So lemme understand your philosophy. If you ever go to court and lose the case, you will also try to "get even" with those guys? (Just trying to establish the thought process here.)

As Nominet said at the meeting the other day www.notnominet.org.uk is perfectly ok.

For the sake of fairplay and good order it might have been appropriate to also type in Nominet's reasons why they felt notnominet was okay. Assuming you are interested in fairplay and good order that is?

How about after every DRS case like this we register the "not" version of the domain......

notbounce.co.uk

And on there have the a statement from the "coalition of DRS victims" !

Also as governments ...... i mean Nominet only change policy on the basis of bad press ......... I think everyone should contact Kieren McCarthy with their DRS story. http://www.kierenmccarthy.me.uk

Uh? Nominet do not change policy because of bad press, they change policy on the basis of stakeholder feedback. This includes members, tag holders, domainers, dropcatchers and all other stakeholder groups like government and yes! Even Kieran (gawd bless his sometimes tabloid view of things). That is why it is important for you and everyone else reading this to respond to the upcoming DRS review consultation.

As an aside, as Lee Grandin posted in another thread, it is good to see that each DRS does indeed seem to be judged on its merits... as they should be. DRS 03658 applies. However, everybody on here keeps confusing Nominet's role and the experts who actually make and write up the decisions. Nominet does not make DRS decisions, and no matter how much you protest, it doesn't make it so. Can we please inject a little reality into our observations and criticisms?

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[sneezycheese]

However, everybody on here keeps confusing Nominet's role and the experts who actually make and write up the decisions. Nominet does not make DRS decisions, and no matter how much you protest, it doesn't make it so. Can we please inject a little reality into our observations and criticisms?

...REALITY:

1. Nominet make 'THE RULES'.
2. Nominet does the 'HIRING and FIRING'.

...So Nominets role is quite 'LARGE'.

 

[Jac]

...REALITY:

1. Nominet make 'THE RULES'.
2. Nominet does the 'HIRING and FIRING'.

...So Nominets role is quite 'LARGE'.

sneezy

I do not dispute that Nominet's role is quite 'LARGE'... without Nominet there wouldn't be a DRS or a panel of experts, but that still does not mean they make the decisions. They don't.

The government's role in the court system is quite 'LARGE' and the Home Secretary (Home Office) is responsible for internal affairs in England and Wales through policies to reduce crime and deliver justice, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the courts to make judgements (decisions).

That's the reality of dispute systems, no matter whether they are DRS, Arbitration, Legal, or otherwise. So whilst you are correct if you mean that Nominet adminsters the system, you are not correct to blame Nominet for the decisions. Blame the experts (if blame is appropriate).

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[domaingenius]

I think that Nominet need to look again at the purpose and overall rules of the DRS rather than leave the Panelists so much to their own devices and making up decisions on a whim, if theyve had a bad day etc. Whatever the thing is a "structure" (and by that I mean the underlying rules) needs to be solid and what I see is a DRS which is'nt solid and thus the decisions made by panelists are reflecting that. A complete review and base the initial structure and complaint system on TM rules/law will be good.

DG

 

[olebean]

sneezy

I do not dispute that Nominet's role is quite 'LARGE'... without Nominet there wouldn't be a DRS or a panel of experts, but that still does not mean they make the decisions. They don't.

The government's role in the court system is quite 'LARGE' and the Home Secretary (Home Office) is responsible for internal affairs in England and Wales through policies to reduce crime and deliver justice, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the courts to make judgements (decisions).

That's the reality of dispute systems, no matter whether they are DRS, Arbitration, Legal, or otherwise. So whilst you are correct if you mean that Nominet adminsters the system, you are not correct to blame Nominet for the decisions. Blame the experts (if blame is appropriate).

Regards
James Conaghan

Jac

I am sure you would agree that where Nominet are to blame is for the apparent lack on foresight if issues resulting from the DRS occur....

The people at Nominet are not stupid, lets face it even when I suggested that a section should be added to the website that clearly defines how to defend yourself against a claim, it was suggested that they had that on another server.........

tick tock!

 

[Whois-Search]

Which guys? Nominet or the DRS Experts?

So lemme understand your philosophy. If you ever go to court and lose the case, you will also try to "get even" with those guys? (Just trying to establish the thought process here.)

By "guys" I ment big multinationals like P&G who think they can reverse hijack any domain using the DRS - even if its "generic".

This does not stop with UK domains however:

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/10/200835&mode=thread

Also Tony Willoughby et al who think they can interpret their own version of the DRS !

For the sake of fairplay and good order it might have been appropriate to also type in Nominet's reasons why they felt notnominet was okay. Assuming you are interested in fairplay and good order that is?

Ok...... because Hazel is "not" pretending to be Nominet !

However due to sensitivity I doubt a DRS case would ever be brought against a PAB member !

Things would be different if I started registering:

notgoogle.co.uk
notmcdonalds.co.uk
notmicrosoft.co.uk

And was anti and critical their policies !

Uh? Nominet do not change policy because of bad press, they change policy on the basis of stakeholder feedback. This includes members, tag holders, domainers, dropcatchers and all other stakeholder groups like government and yes! Even Kieran (gawd bless his sometimes tabloid view of things). That is why it is important for you and everyone else reading this to respond to the upcoming DRS review consultation.

The only reason we had that meeting was because we was all posting on here - thats enough bad press in my book !

As an aside, as Lee Grandin posted in another thread, it is good to see that each DRS does indeed seem to be judged on its merits... as they should be. DRS 03658 applies. However, everybody on here keeps confusing Nominet's role and the experts who actually make and write up the decisions. Nominet does not make DRS decisions, and no matter how much you protest, it doesn't make it so. Can we please inject a little reality into our observations and criticisms?

I never have said I disagree with all DRS cases ....... only the ones where a "generic" domain has gone to a big company ...... bounce.co.uk game.co.uk ghd.co.uk etc.

However even with webservers.co.uk the right decision was made!

 

[olebean]

Hoey

I am not sure DRS'in Hazel a PAB member would consitute good form

 

[Whois-Search]

It's a bit like saying if Michael Toth had put "not P&G" content on bounce.co.uk he would be ok.......

 

[Jac]

Jac

I am sure you would agree that where Nominet are to blame is for the apparent lack on foresight if issues resulting from the DRS occur....

The people at Nominet are not stupid, lets face it even when I suggested that a section should be added to the website that clearly defines how to defend yourself against a claim, it was suggested that they had that on another server.........

olebean

I don't recall anything being said about "another server" but I could be wrong. So this question is aimed at the 5 people who were at the Nominet meeting. Does anybody else remember this being said?

However, what I thought was said was that Nominet would amend the web pages to reflect help for both respondent and complainant. I think it was acknowledged that currently these webpages are biased more towards the complainant. (I'm all for making things fairer to both parties.)

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Ok...... because Hazel is "not" pretending to be Nominet !

Well, that, and the fact that Nominet did not consider her as trying to pass off or mislead or misdirect anyone. But that is the same choice all companies can make though perhaps because Nominet is a community driven organisation they have a more tolerant view than some of the ones you mention like; notgoogle or notmcdonalds or notmicrosoft. Indeed, McDonalds are known for their aggressive pursuit of anyone using Mc or Mac in their domains.

However due to sensitivity I doubt a DRS case would ever be brought against a PAB member !

This would not stop Nominet. Not so long ago, Nominet pursued a certain member company who were deliberately mis-using and abusing the Nominet name and won. So just being a member or PAB member does not, and frankly should not, protect you from righteous legal action.

The only reason we had that meeting was because we was all posting on here - thats enough bad press in my book !

Actually.. the reason we had that meeting is because I wanted some of you guys to sit down and have a face2face with Nominet, and as I said at the meeting, I wanted you to see (firsthand) that Nominet is not the big ogre some of you think it is. (olebean even quipped that the reverse was true too.)

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Michael Penman]

Some personal views

I wanted you to see (firsthand) that Nominet is not the big ogre some of you think it is.

'S true. Some stakeholders lose sight of the fact that the Nominet they deal with isn't a monolith with the single purpose of disadvantaging them; it's a bunch a individual employees all trying their level, honest best to serve and represent the stakeholders (all of the stakeholders) as best they can. Sometimes the wishes of stakeholders conflict. In my personal view my colleagues work hard for everyone, regardless.

Things would be different if I started registering:
notgoogle.co.uk
notmcdonalds.co.uk
notmicrosoft.co.uk

Would they? I'm the editor of an oft-quoted site under the domain name
[famously litigious company]sucks.org The site's been mentioned on The Reg, on Radio 4 and a host of other places. The company I'm commenting on is a regular visitor to my site. However, I doubt I'll ever hear anything from them about the domain name, because I don't feel there's even a remote chance of initial interest confusion. (And the site is absolutely beyond reproach.) I don't think the ADR outcomes vary with the size of the complainant as much as people like to think they do. However, if there were no ADR system and the complainant felt they must/could drag me to court, then their funding would probably beat me into letting the name and site drop.

On the Nominet website: we're hoping to update our section of the website really soon, based on feedback from several sources. The content might not change much, but we're hoping it'll be better organised and easier to understand, for complainants and registrants. We have a working draft that we can see, which might be what people meant by 'on a second server'. We'll finish it as soon as time allows.

Sadly my lunch (and personal views) end now!

 

[olebean]

Michael

I think you will find it was whois-search that typed

Things would be different if I started registering:
notgoogle.co.uk
notmcdonalds.co.uk
notmicrosoft.co.uk

Great to see your editing skills etc are upto it

 

[Whois-Search]

Actually.. the reason we had that meeting is because I wanted some of you guys to sit down and have a face2face with Nominet, and as I said at the meeting, I wanted you to see (firsthand) that Nominet is not the big ogre some of you think it is. (olebean even quipped that the reverse was true too.)

That may have been your reason for having the meeting. However it seemed we all had our own "agenda" for the meeting. Mine was to help to diffuse the situation that was going on in threads like this one.

However on the other points on the examples above I will accept its down to the company and the DRS expert(s).

Stelios lost the easypizza.co.uk case for example:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/20/stelios_loses_easypizza/

He also has an 'interesting' section on his website:

http://www.easy.com/thieves/index.html

 

[Jac]

Michael

I think you will find it was whois-search that typed

Things would be different if I started registering:
notgoogle.co.uk
notmcdonalds.co.uk
notmicrosoft.co.uk

Great to see your editing skills etc are upto it

Er... that'd be why it was headed Originally Posted by whois-search then.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[olebean]

Er... that'd be why it was headed Originally Posted by whois-search then.

Regards
James Conaghan

Lol Jac

Keep up man, Michael has edited it again

 

[Jac]

Lol Jac

Keep up man, Michael has edited it again

LOL... so he has... the rotten swine, he's gone and deaded me again!

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Whois-Search]

Beasty and Michael........

Do you think this case:

http://www.out-law.com/page-6244

Has affected your appeal on bounce.co.uk? or your decision to go to high court?

Looks like no domain is safe now and they have your hands tied.

 

[grandin]

citigroup case

the citigroup case is on the nominet website...apparently we should read it as part of our contract.

Saying that the high court judge didnt know you cant own a domain name

domain name ownership is as confusing as my mrs

Cant believe this thread has has 1000+ views

Lee

 

[Whois-Search]

Cant believe this thread has has 1000+ views

Maybe it's not just us reading it