DRS Review

[ian]

Garth, pain for you I agree, but look at it this way, at least the other party are wasting more time and money than you

 

[monaghan]

I personally don't mind reading ludicrous complaints. They don't wind me up. I question why Respondents that receive a substantial number of complaints let it bother them. I've always said that it's a cost of doing business. It is often possible to reuse previous responses and I often relish kicking a complaint out of the ballpark.

Nominet allow domain trading, they register names on first come first served basis, therefore why should a DRS against a legitimately registered domain that is not violating any of the Nominet T&C's be allowed?

Keep the DRS free for anything breaking T&C's or trademarks, but why should john smith have to take his time & effort to defend johnsmith.co.uk from every other person called john smith who thinks they should have the domain?

 

[RobM]

A Respondent can elect not to partake and instead launch a court case if they felt they want to.

Do you know any courts and lawyers that provide services free for respondents to chancers?

 

[RobM]

I must've misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that, rather than fix the issue of frivolous complaints being allowed in the first place, the respondent could choose to take it to court at his own expense (as opposed to the complainant having to pay a decision fee *if* the respondent makes a response) because I don't really see that as an option to 'partake' or not in the DRS.

 

[RobM]

Actually thinking about it wouldn't it be better for a complainant to pay a fee (refundable on a successful mediation or positive decision) before the complaint? That would stop a lot of hopefuls with no chance from even bothering.

 

[monaghan]

Actually thinking about it wouldn't it be better for a complainant to pay a fee (refundable on a successful mediation or positive decision) before the complaint? That would stop a lot of hopefuls with no chance from even bothering.

Even a nominal read by Nominet or an independent to filter the chancers and explain the T&C's to the "my name is XXXXX and yours isn't", basically a quick read of the submission and those that say "no chance" to be bounced (of course with the option to go further if they really want to)

The rest of the DRS (in my opinion) works well so let's not break that.

 

[gimpydog]

It pisses me off that complaints like this get through. No matter what the basis of the complaint is the registrant still has to spend time/money compiling the response.

Be careful what you wish for.

The more hurdles the DRS creates, the more likely it is that complainants will resort to the courts.

 

[bluerock]

The funny thing about this drs is that I listed the name here at £150 with no takers. Complainant does not know that and I know they wont pay the fee but you still have to reply to force their hand.

 

[inbound]

Just managed to get my response in (not exactly as written to Nominet below).

I suggested that a "DRS Defence Bond" is enacted when a complaint is deemed to be potentially frivolous. This would be set at, say, £1000, £2000 or £3000 depending on the initial thoughts of a DRS aware employee/expert - the less merit the complaint has the higher the bond. "Bond" may be a poor choice of term, but the idea is the main point for consideration.

Nominet could set the bonds aside as a designated fund. Ideally, given the difficulty of collecting costs after a negative decision, the claimant should be required to pay the bond to proceed - the legalities of this may mean that an alternative, but similar, route is enacted.

If a complaint is seen to be without enough merit to mean that the respondent is awarded costs (up to a published limit) and the bond is withheld from the complainant. These complaints are likely to be the ones paying the higher bond (hence covering, or nearly covering the costs)

A complaint that is unsuccessful but does not pay damages still results in the bond being withheld. This means that complaints which are likely to have paid £1000 of a bond (showing a small degree of speculative behaviour) are paying for the shortfall in costs collected from those complaints that are paying £2000.

Successful DRS complainants get their bond back.

I suggested it as an option, just so they can't say that other suggestions (that might have said 100% costs to be covered and nothing else) were not flexible enough.

The ideal thing is to dissuade DRS speculation and protect respondents.

I don't care how they do it, as long as something is done.