DRS is OUT!!!! Enjoy the read

[grandin]

sneezy

Sneezy,

They discussed at an advisory meeting what to advise on....they then went on about advising to change the advising name

I would ask:-

Did the Advisers Advise on what to advise on which included advising on the advisory name?

Lee

 

[Reddy]

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

A quick look down the recent list of DRS cases indicates the vast majority are brought by companies/organisations, so I don't think the extra fee would cause most of them a problem. On the other hand, a higher percentage of the respondents do appear to be individuals, so are less likely to have the funds available and easy access to legal advice in order to defend themselves.

The complainant has a choice whether or not to bring a case to DRS; the respondent does not have a choice - he has to defend it (unless he's just willing to lie down and let the domain name be taken).

The current system is on a FCFS basis, so Nominet/DRS should do all they can to protect the current Registrant, unless the domain is clearly being used to abuse a claimant's rights.

If say I was the Registrant of a generic domain like orange.co.uk and was using it to sell oranges (the fruit). Orange (the mobile network) might quite like to own the domain name and could go to DRS to try to obtain it cheaply - afterall £750 is nothing to a company that size and they will almost certainly have their own in-house legal team. I on the otherhand would have to spend time and money mounting a defence. Hopefully(?), as I had not been infringing on their rights, the DRS would be decided in my favour. Although having 'won' the case, I would still be out of pocket. A few months later, another company might decide to bring their own DRS (perhaps Easyjet since they seem to like orange) and I would have to defend myself again - more time/money.

David

 

[grandin]

DRS search

Jay, given you are in charge of IT at Nominet how come Nominet restricted my ability to defend my DRS by restricting DRS search to 50 results? With over 3 million words contained within the DRS how come your search facility restricted my searching to 50 results?

Would you agree its a bit crappy and unprofessional?

PS: Did Nominet contractually tell me that I was trolling??...very silly

Lee

 

[Jay Daley]

Jay, given you are in charge of IT at Nominet how come Nominet restricted my ability to defend my DRS by restricting DRS search to 50 results? With over 3 million words contained within the DRS how come your search facility restricted my searching to 50 results?

Would you agree its a bit crappy and unprofessional?

No, that's a bit strong even for you. Yes it does need improvement and yes we are working on it.

 

[grandin]

Bit strong

Its also a bit strong that laymen (most buyers of your product) don't get a chance to put right an supposed abuse (in light of the contract length)..............

I remember doing a search on your website for the word 'Nominet' no results were obtained. This mistake doesn't result in you losing your job does it?....mistakes do happen.

Anyway why is the new PAB name legless and headless?

Lee

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Anyway why is the new PAB name legless and headless?

Makes a change from the average board, which is often as thick as a plank?

Hazel

 

[olebean]

Jay, given you are in charge of IT at Nominet how come Nominet restricted my ability to defend my DRS by restricting DRS search to 50 results? With over 3 million words contained within the DRS how come your search facility restricted my searching to 50 results?

Would you agree its a bit crappy and unprofessional?

PS: Did Nominet contractually tell me that I was trolling??...very silly

Lee

Lee

Is there any chance we can keep this about the questions in the DRS or would you prefer we start another thread?

OB

 

[sneezycheese]

Self Interests...

Its also a bit strong that laymen (most buyers of your product) don't get a chance to put right an supposed abuse (in light of the contract length)..............

...It would seem that it is proposed that this situation be made worse:

Abusive registrations

Include a likelihood of confusion as evidence of an abusive registration i.e. soften the test at 3(a)(ii) ('has confused').

State that the abusive use does not have to be ongoing for the purposes of Policy 3(a)(iii) - it is enough that abusive use has occurred in the past.

In addition: I don't see any of the recommendations that I made in a lengthy report to Nominet many months ago in the current DRS Consultation.

...Were they so unpalatable Nominet? - or do my opinions mean nothing? - It seems I had waisted my time - I will not try to help again!

Maybe if I was one of T.W.'s crony's it would be a different matter!

Conclusion: Nominet and their 'experts' look after themselves and their kin first - I will now do the same. :twisted:

 

[grandin]

Good one

Thats a good one Hazel, I am glad things remain light hearted.

I must be as thick as a plank not understanding the DRS like you bods do....Am I to assume that I can only join a board and not a body?

What do you get when you join a body and a board? A domain name web surfer

Lee

 

[grandin]

I am tired

How come Nominet sent me an email wanting my comments on the DRS...surely they have enough from me

Lee

 

[Whois-Search]

Lee,

Ask for a copy of the EGM webcast and watch "Informal discussions" at 01:08:34 where Ken says "I won't be answering any consultation this time round, cuz I have little confidence in suggestions actually being adopted"

Then Clive Feather (PAB) at 01:15:15 in response to ken "if you don't reply to a consultation then you can't complain if you don't like the results".

And you will see what your up against.

Andrew

 

[grandin]

quotes

Ah....so Clive is saying registrants have to be as good as a trade mark attorney or contract lawyer i.e. absorb the 3 million word contract and then make a complaint under the consultation....failure to complain because your do not understand trade mark law can be detrimental to your future right complain??

Hasn't clive also been on the board for a few years?

Interesting to note that you are now turned off from joining the PAB...is it a bit clicky?

Lee

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Interesting to note that you are now turned off from joining the PAB

He is? Only last night Andrew informed nom-steer that he would be standing for the PAB next year.

Hazel

 

[Beasty]

How come Nominet sent me an email wanting my comments on the DRS...surely they have enough from me

Lee

I think they are emailing everyone who has been a party or a representative in a DRS. That means all the corporates and IP lawyers who see it as "another weapon" to enforce their "rights" will have been invited to comment.

So if people who have a strong interest in this - like the people on Acorn - don't put in their opinions - then they should not be surprised if they don't like the outcome.

However if you (and everyone else on here) do give your opinions - and if they are then ignored - THEN we will have a justified cause to complain.

 

[olebean]

I think they are emailing everyone who has been a party or a representative in a DRS. That means all the corporates and IP lawyers who see it as "another weapon" to enforce their "rights" will have been invited to comment.

So if people who have a strong interest in this - like the people on Acorn - don't put in their opinions - then they should not be surprised if they don't like the outcome.

However if you (and everyone else on here) do give your opinions - and if they are then ignored - THEN we will have a justified cause to complain.

Beasty

It depends on the credence nominet places on each opinion

 

[Beasty]

Beasty

It depends on the credence nominet places on each opinion

Absoultely Olebean - but if people put in reasoned submissions and attend the public (or are they just for members?) meetings that are planned - then if one set of views is given more weight than anothers - for no legitimate reason - then people really can call foul.

Doing nothing "because they won't listen anyway" is a self fulfilling prophesy.

 

[olebean]

Absoultely Olebean - but if people put in reasoned submissions and attend the public (or are they just for members?) meetings that are planned - then if one set of views is given more weight than anothers - for no legitimate reason - then people really can call foul.

In fairness and as specified earlier, there are elements of the consultation that indicate a willingness on Nominets part and suggestion that the DRS as defined may no longer apply. Do I expect Nominet to add weight, probably, and that is the reason to fight harder.

Doing nothing "because they won't listen anyway" is a self fulfilling prophesy.

I agree and the quality of response is equally imperitive, as I'm sure many of us wouldn't want to be reflected in a negative light...

 

[grandin]

drs

good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, I offer one requirement of the DRS:-

The DRS must reflect known english law, if they can't do this they do not have a right to rule on what they do not know.

A right must be established under English Law and then be Enforceable under English law.

i.e. Do we know whether to offer a surname for general sale is breaking english law? If not, keep the domain name with the registrant and await action by the complainant via the courts. One case via the courts will sort this question out!!!

Nomient are chasing new avenues....why after the DRS case tescoestateagents are they offering me tescofoods.co.uk for sale.....in my opinion truly unethical selling. They would take my money today and for many years unless the rights holder comes knocking at my door

Observed by Government officials

Lee

 

[Crusader-K]

Lee,

Ask for a copy of the EGM webcast and watch "Informal discussions" at 01:08:34 where Ken says "I won't be answering any consultation this time round, cuz I have little confidence in suggestions actually being adopted"

Then Clive Feather (PAB) at 01:15:15 in response to ken "if you don't reply to a consultation then you can't complain if you don't like the results".

And you will see what your up against.

Andrew

Is there a link to view the recorded EGM2 webcast?

Or as you say "ask for a copy", from whom please?

 

[Whois-Search]

Lee,

I saw Ken Sorrie's comment as ........ "i've been there since 1996 going on about this and you (Nominet) keep doing the opposite (Nominet's ideas listed on the consultation) so why should I bother replying".

I saw Clive's comment as ........ a typical pedantic Clive reply. I just watched the webcast again to make sure. You can tell this by the tone of his voice and the way everyone laughs to "thats a statement" and not a question to the board.

Now the statement itself is perfectly reasonable. However the way in which he said it wasn't - it won't bring Ken on board will it?

Therefore.........

If I said the same thing to you Lee you wouldn't take any notice?

I was just trying to encourage you to reply by using an example of how Nominet works. You have to do it their way otherwise nothing will get done about it.

This is why i'm standing for the PAB because at the moment it needs someone who understands "domainers" and someone with "People Skills".

As it happens since the EGM people like Jim, Ken, Angus and I have been talking about forming a group response to the DRS review. Maybe you, sneezy, olebean would like to join in?

Or please do submit your own response how ever long you decide to make it (even if you send them the post above).

I think Angus needs to plant a few more Woodlands.co.uk for all the paper that gets used in the DRS! Beasty was telling me they require 3 copies of everything?

Otherwise the only stakeholders that will reply will be Tony Willoughby and his pals and Nominet/PAB will base the changes to the DRS upon their responses.

Andrew

P.S. You can get the webcast only if your a TAG holder by emailing Nominet support for a password and then entering it in to:

EGM webcast

Maybe someone should download the "informal questions" chunk and 'Youtube' it