DRS is OUT!!!! Enjoy the read

[Jay Daley]

That may be a good idea ,and then sign it en masse and send it in to Nominet.

Do a mass response by all means, but don't neglect to do individual submissions.

 

[olebean]

That may be a good idea ,and then sign it en masse and send it in to Nominet.

DG

Dilution of voice? or collective action?

Jay is right, submitting individual points is very important.... It isn't very often these issues are open for public consultation/publishing.

Many on this board have asked for change and yet some are shying away?

 

[Reddy]

My personal feeling is the whole DRS procedure tends to favour the complainant from the outset. If an expert decision is requested, the best the respondent can hope for is the status-quo (i.e. for the complaint to be overturned). But whatever happens the respondent will be out of pocket in terms of time (and possibly costs for legal advice etc.) in mounting their defence. Even if the respondent is successful and gets to keep the domain name, he is going to have lost out in terms of time and money, for which he receives no redress. I believe if a case is brought against you in court and which you successfully defend, you can be awarded your costs from the party which brought the case.

Under DRS, the complainant on the other hand pays his £750 and can potentially be awarded a domain name worth much more. £750 is small change for large companies, so in fact they have very little to lose by bringing a complaint, even if their case is not necessarily strong.

Why not introduce an extra fee/deposit (say another £750) to be paid by the complainant in addition to the £750 DRS fee? If successful in proving their case, the extra fee would be returned to the complainant. Alternatvely, should the complainant fail to prove their case, the fee is paid to the respondent to cover their inconvenience, time and costs. This could reduce the numbers of cases going to the DRS to those where there is a very strong case with obvious infringement of a complainant's rights or Abusive Registration. Reverse-hijacking claims could also potentially be reduced.

So for complainants who go on to win, their extra fee/deposit is returned, so in effect they still only pay the current £750 fee. Respondents successfully defending the DRS will receive a payment to cover their costs/time.

David

 

[domaingenius]

Dilution of voice? or collective action?

Jay is right, submitting individual points is very important.... It isn't very often these issues are open for public consultation/publishing.

Many on this board have asked for change and yet some are shying away?

But the issues they have put up for "consultation" and the choices they give as answers will make no real difference to the DRS ,and most certainly not the complete re think it actually requires. The shorter of domains the UK becomes the more and more companies will take tenuous DRS complaints and the more ridiculous complainant biased decisions will be made, amongst a few fair decisions.

As I say what Nominet is asking and the way they are asking it they can say "we did consult you" when in actuality the consultation is pretty much meaningless.

DG

 

[aqls]

I think the decision on the fairness of the domain useage/registration should be settled separately from the punishment.

i.e. the "expert" is empowered to decide whether the domain useage is unfair/bad faith etc. [which possibly determines the choices available to the second party] and a second party is empowered to determine the forfeit. i.e. whether the domain owner has to change useage, is fined for having content that is passing off or trademark infringement, or has to give over the domain.

I see this as being a system twice as fair as the one now and less open to abuse by inexpert experts.

It also attacks the problem where the problem most usually stands (i.e. the content of the site) rather than the domain name itself.

-aqls-

 

[Jay Daley]

As I say what Nominet is asking and the way they are asking it they can say "we did consult you" when in actuality the consultation is pretty much meaningless.

If you don't respond to the consultation and others follow your lead then that will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

[Beasty]

If you don't respond to the consultation and others follow your lead then that will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I agree Jay. Mind you, I suspect some of us may be making submissions!

 

[domaingenius]

If you don't respond to the consultation and others follow your lead then that will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Jay, in that case why do Nominet ask some better questions or give some better options in the consultation to make it worthwhile and fairer ?. It would'nt take much more effort to do that.

DG

 

[Jay Daley]

Jay, in that case why do Nominet ask some better questions or give some better options in the consultation to make it worthwhile and fairer ?. It would'nt take much more effort to do that.

There are a few different points to answer that with

The range of questions
The views expressed on AD on how the DRS should change represent just one of a number of sections of industry and society that have views. The consultation is built up from an aggregate of that. Some of the things covered have clearly originated from concerns of AD folk - such as 'protection for the secondary market'. But others quite clearly come from concerns expressed by the IPR folk.

The specific nature of the questions
When we talk to people about these points they tend to have put considerable thought into them. They come with well formed opinions with depth to the reasoning. We listen and discuss and come away with detailed ideas. Our consultation reflects this by asking detailed questions with proposals for change already incorporated. To do otherwise, say without putting any proposals forward, would take much longer and would seemingly ignore the detailed points that people raise with us.

Closed or open
There is a very specific invitation for any respondent to raise any other issues that they believe needs airing. So even if you find the range of questions above is not to your liking or the questions posed are to specific, there is still the option to say something completely different.

So in the end, the fact that you don't like the questions being asked should not matter one bit, because you can still tell us exactly what you think and we will listen.

 

[grandin]

Nominet

Clearly Jay........get the DTI to do its job and look after all its stakeholders i.e. THE PUBLIC

They sit on your board, run the Patent Office, run Trading Standards........

Government officials are making it clear to me that they only observe what Nominet do BUT why observe if you are not prepared to offer advice or take action where action is due...

I personally think the experts and DTI owe Nominet a favour.....FOC!!!

Question: The issues raised in the DRS review, are they issues raised in the last 6 months or dating back years????? If dating back years why make the move now???

I personally think the observers and experts should have sorted this out years ago

No substance exists in the DRS review their is nothing to comment on

Lee

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Why not introduce an extra fee/deposit (say another £750) to be paid by the complainant in addition to the £750 DRS fee? If successful in proving their case, the extra fee would be returned to the complainant. Alternatvely, should the complainant fail to prove their case, the fee is paid to the respondent to cover their inconvenience, time and costs.

Interesting idea. Tho' it does up the hurdle for using the DRS if the complainant is an individual rather than a large company. I'd find it hard to raise £750, never mind £1500. On the other hand it might make people think twice before bringing a DRS case.

Hazel

 

[grandin]

they think twice before bringing it to the drs cause the court would be more effective....unless they think they have a better chance with an expert ruling than a judge.....with the quality of the current experts what do you think Hazel?

Lee

 

[Hazel Pegg]

with the quality of the current experts what do you think Hazel?

I think that I am not qualified to comment on the quality of the current experts.

Hazel

 

[Jay Daley]

Clearly Jay........get the DTI to do its job and look after all its stakeholders i.e. THE PUBLIC

They sit on your board, run the Patent Office, run Trading Standards........

Wherever possible I'd like to try and avoid this particular digression, but in this case I just can't stop myself...

• The DTI do not sit on our board of directors, they sit on our Policy Advisory Board, very different.
  
• The DTI do not run the Patent Office, the Patent Office does, the DTI is the parent department but that is very different.
  
• The DTI do not run Trading Standards, local authorities do, the DTI have some role in joining that up but that is very different.

If you choose to have conspiracies about government then fine, just please don't bring us into them.

 

[sneezycheese]

Interesting idea. Tho' it does up the hurdle for using the DRS if the complainant is an individual rather than a large company. I'd find it hard to raise £750, never mind £1500. On the other hand it might make people think twice before bringing a DRS case.

Hazel

...Hazel - can you tell us the current percentage of complainants that are in fact 'individuals'? - i.e. 'natural persons' of one country or another.

Many thanks in advance.

Sneezy.

PS: I like Reddy's idea - it would show clear 'customer commitment' and 'equal justice'!!!

 

[Hazel Pegg]

...Hazel - can you tell us the current percentage of complainants that are in fact 'individuals'? - i.e. 'natural persons' of one country or another.

Sorry. I don't have a clue and don't have the time to trawl through all the past cases to find out.

Hazel

 

[Hazel Pegg]

[*]The DTI do not sit on our board of directors, they sit on our Policy Advisory Board, very different.

Policy Advisory Body as of Nov 8th.

Hazel

 

[sneezycheese]

Policy Advisory Body as of Nov 8th.

...What's the point of this name change? :???:

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[grandin]

Jay,

you said 'If you choose to have conspiracies about government then fine'

Are you talking about the gay chicken email that I recieved from someone at the home office? This has nothing to do with a conspiracy....I asked the person who sent it to substantiate his claim that it was sent in error....he hasn't yet

Conspirancies do not exist and for Nominet to try and cover this point by posting seems pointless.

What is the purpose of the DTI, Trade Mark Attorneys Office and the like sitting on the Policy Advisory Board? Are they to observe not advise? Are they to observe and then advise? are they to observe and report breaches?

A purpose to everything so please state their purpose?

Lee

 

[Hazel Pegg]

...What's the point of this name change? :???:

To try to remove the confusion between the Nominet Board of Directors and the Nominet PAB. As evidenced by the mail to which Jay was replying.


"In previous papers, the Executive has reported that feedback from the membership suggests that there is confusion about the role of the PAB. A number of members and others assume incorrectly that PAB members are directors of Nominet. This also gives rise to potential legal issues, since external people may assume that PAB members have the authority to bind the company, which of course is untrue."
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9765_Nov_06_PAB_Governance_issues_.pdf

Hazel