Help from powers at beeeeeeeeeeeeeee

grandin · Dec 4, 2006

Extract '5. DRS Review ***** Taylor expressed her apologies on behalf of the Executive, as despite their best efforts they had been unable to bring a finalised paper to the PAB meeting. Nominet requested PAB members who belong to communities who do have an interest in this issue to please bring it to the attention of their members in order that their input is gathered.'

Read into this what you like...I have

olebean · Dec 4, 2006

Lee

Are you suggesting there is a power struggle?

Well to me it is as it reads.

grandin · Dec 4, 2006

effort where efforts due

Bob Gilbert was a company law specialist and Deputy Senior Partner of Wragge & Co.....

Despite their best efforts they couldn't bring a solution to the table?

Lee

olebean · Dec 4, 2006

Nor could the PAB agree on issues

I really don't see a problem, the PAB decided to set up a sub-committee.. The PAB wouldn't have time to read, digest and respond effectively at the meeting anyway... So the delay is a few days..

Hazel Pegg · Dec 5, 2006

olebean said:
I really don't see a problem, the PAB decided to set up a sub-committee.. The PAB wouldn't have time to read, digest and respond effectively at the meeting anyway... So the delay is a few days..

Correct. Once the PAB meeting was told that the DRS Review would formally begin on Nov 17th (?) then the issue of the paper not being ready for the Nov PAB meeting was not important. The Review is proceeding roughly as scheduled and little, if anything, has been lost due to waiting a few days more for the paper from Nominet.

Hazel

sneezycheese · Dec 5, 2006

Hazel Pegg said:
Once the PAB meeting was told that the DRS Review would formally begin on Nov 17th (?) then the issue of the paper not being ready for the Nov PAB meeting was not important.

...Why???

And...

What should the paper have contained???

Regards,

Sneezy.

grandin · Dec 5, 2006

Sorry

Sorry Hazel,

I thought Nominet were saying sorry for not being able to produce a finalised paper to the DRS review....

My mistake....do I lose a domain name?

Lee

olebean · Dec 5, 2006

grandin said:
Sorry Hazel,

I thought Nominet were saying sorry for not being able to produce a finalised paper to the DRS review....

My mistake....do I lose a domain name?

Lee

Lee

7 hail Marys and free lunch for all the forum members (you have to pay!)!

Whois-Search · Dec 5, 2006

The actual paper in the end was this Updating the .uk Dispute Resolution Service ?

Hazel Pegg · Dec 5, 2006

Whois-Search said:
The actual paper in the end was this Updating the .uk Dispute Resolution Service ?

Almost - that's the introduction page and summary. The actual paper that I am referring to is here at DRS review consultation web version

Hazel

domaingenius · Dec 5, 2006

Hazel Pegg said:
Almost - that's the introduction page and summary. The actual paper that I am referring to is here at DRS review consultation web version

Hazel

Withdrawn for now and we shall see how things proceed !

DG

grandin · Dec 6, 2006

Ole you said '7 hail Marys and free lunch for all the forum members (you have to pay!)!'

How are you going to allocate the 7 hail marys to the 100's of acorn members?

Lee

olebean · Dec 6, 2006

grandin said:
Ole you said '7 hail Marys and free lunch for all the forum members (you have to pay!)!'

How are you going to allocate the 7 hail marys to the 100's of acorn members?

Lee

Lee

That isn't bloody Marys! You will have to say them.. :mrgreen:

Hazel Pegg · Dec 6, 2006

domaingenius said:
Withdrawn for now and we shall see how things proceed !

DG

How wierd. I'll try again ....

DRS review consultation web version

grandin · Dec 7, 2006

Interesting

Hazel,

On what basis are they going to make certain practices allowable under the drs....ie. will it be based on law?...has a judge somewhere ruled that a ppc page doesn't infringe on trade mark rights?

To what degree are you going to encourage certain uses and are Nominet going to hold themselves jointly liable if a later court case decides they we wrong?

Lee