legal status of UK domains

[Jac]

I can not say that I agree with you there. There are people who are more expert in this than I am - but somewhere on this site is a list of prices paid last year and in other years for .uk domains. Perhaps not the $12-14 million reportedly paid for sex.com - but it strikes me as domains (notably generics and short acronymns) have an intrinsic value often reaching 4 or 5 figures.

As I said recently, the 'value' in a domain name is more about what a buyer is prepared to pay for it rather than what the seller actually wants for it. In that respect it is a buyer's market. I accept there are people still prepared to pay 4 and 5 figures for a domain name but my point is you can't go to the bank and use a domain name as security for a loan because there is no intrinsic value in the domain name itself and no matter how much you may have paid for it, it is not regarded as a tangible asset. If the Courts were to find that a domain name were 'property' or 'goods' then perceptions might well change.

I take your comments to mean people should not rely on Nominet to necesarily be able to look after their interests at all times - that at times they may fall short. I would agree - since I was not suggesting that anyone should rely on it to look after their interests. The rest of what you say leaves me a bit baffled.

Perhaps I confused things because I tagged on the issue of 'expectations'. I guess I was making two points. The first being that I believe domain registrant groups (aka stakeholders) have a right to question and a right to expect an above average level of commitment and integrity from the UK Registry. The second being that some of the comments I see on boards like Acorn Domains suggests to me that people are unrealistic in their expectations of the system especially when the system was created in good faith and in an attempt to be fair to all. Logic dictates it is impossible to find a policy or procedure that will satisfy every single difference of opinion. This is evidenced in government legislation where for every loophole they close, they create others which were not there before.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Beasty]

As I said recently, the 'value' in a domain name is more about what a buyer is prepared to pay for it rather than what the seller actually wants for it. In that respect it is a buyer's market. I accept there are people still prepared to pay 4 and 5 figures for a domain name but my point is you can't go to the bank and use a domain name as security for a loan because there is no intrinsic value in the domain name itself and no matter how much you may have paid for it, it is not regarded as a tangible asset. If the Courts were to find that a domain name were 'property' or 'goods' then perceptions might well change.

Again there are people on here who have bought and sold domains who are better placed than me to judge. However if I understand the domaining model a bit now - there is value in a domain derived from the way traffic - and so either clients or clicks - are generated. So unless I'm missing something - there is an intrinsic value that is not solely driven by one or more potential buyers being found.

Perhaps I confused things because I tagged on the issue of 'expectations'. I guess I was making two points. The first being that I believe domain registrant groups (aka stakeholders) have a right to question and a right to expect an above average level of commitment and integrity from the UK Registry. The second being that some of the comments I see on boards like Acorn Domains suggests to me that people are unrealistic in their expectations of the system especially when the system was created in good faith and in an attempt to be fair to all. Logic dictates it is impossible to find a policy or procedure that will satisfy every single difference of opinion. This is evidenced in government legislation where for every loophole they close, they create others which were not there before.

I probably agree with the general gist of what you say. I take it that you are confident that good faith and an attempt to be fair to all prevailed at all times?

 

[grandin]

Point missed

Jac, the point missed by the experts and your good self is that a name like bounce is desirable as a trading name because:-

its memorable

short

everyone can spell it

there are limited number of words in proportion to the number of registered .co.uk's

As such if a company wants to be internationally recognised they need an international trading platform....any business who trades without .com .co.uk .eu etc.... has to pay a price at a later date

One of my pending trade marks is stinki so even though I have registered .co.uk for £10 I had to secure every possible alternative... one of those alternatives stinki.com cost me a few thousand

On the same note we set up under lettingagent.com but being a UK company we needed lettingagent.co.uk that cost me £1500...thats business.....I wanted to build on the land so I bought the land

So to give away a generic word like bounce is outrageous and must be said to be against fair trade...saying that the whole online trading platform favours trade mark holders....so I am surprised to see the government on the nominet pab.............ie. they favour unfair trade

No wonder the home office sent an email to me...apparently meant for someone else...very interesting indeed but unprofessional given it talked about shooting gay chickens

gay chickens indeeeeed

Lee

 

[Beasty]

List of Sales that Show Intrinsic Value in Domains

Here is the page with the list of sale prices achieved that show there is a thriving market in domains that relies largely on their intrinsic value. It seems bizarre to need to say it on here - but as Lee says - there is a finite supply, so desirable domains (like desirable plots of land) have an intrinsic value.

http://www.domainprices.co.uk/

 

[grandin]

Not pence

As beasty points out...domains have not been sold for pence

Nominets involvement in the court case...Will Nominet be impartial the T & C's imply they think a domain name isnt property.

Thinking:-

If a domain name was property then the requirement for a renewal would not exist...the renewal fee is created by the renewal itself...job creation

I assume Nominet has built personal relationships with their renewal team staff so without a requirement for a renewal then you could find pressure on that relationship.

Maybe Nominet should explain to ALL what they intend to say in the court case...Land Registry don't have a renewal they cover the charge of holding the registrar by charging for searches, change of ownership etc....

I don't understand why a renewal was created...it was created to create it

Weird and wonderful
Lee

 

[sneezycheese]

Nominets involvement in the court case...Will Nominet be impartial the T & C's imply they think a domain name isnt property.

...I have three questions regarding this issue:

1. Has Nominet been allowed to act as an 'Expert Witness' in this case?

2. Is there any way an individual or group of people outside the case object to Nominet's submission?

3. Can we ourselves as 'Domainers' make a similar submission to the court?

Any help on the issue would be appreciated.

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[Beasty]

...I have three questions regarding this issue:

1. Has Nominet been allowed to act as an 'Expert Witness' in this case?

2. Is there any way an individual or group of people outside the case object to Nominet's submission?

3. Can we ourselves as 'Domainers' make a similar submission to the court?

Any help on the issue would be appreciated.

Regards,

Sneezy.

1. It seems from what I've read that they have asked - it's not clear whether they have received an answer.

2. Anyone can apply to take part as an interested party - though whether they could block Nominet's involvement is less likely I think. What they could do is suggest a different analysis - assuming they disagreed with Nominet.

3. Given the nature of the question (not the actual issue at hand in the case, but the general interest of the point about property made clear by LJ May) they might well be allowed to be heard. There is no guarantee - but some sort of "association" of the types shown in the US case would have a fair chance of getting its view across.

 

[sneezycheese]

1. It seems from what I've read that they have asked - it's not clear whether they have received an answer.

2. Anyone can apply to take part as an interested party - though whether they could block Nominet's involvement is less likely I think. What they could do is suggest a different analysis - assuming they disagreed with Nominet.

3. Given the nature of the question (not the actual issue at hand in the case, but the general interest of the point about property made clear by LJ May) they might well be allowed to be heard. There is no guarantee - but some sort of "association" of the types shown in the US case would have a fair chance of getting its view across.

...Thanks Beasty.

So who's with me in making a 'group' application to the court? Especialy those of you with either a large or valuable portfolio, or expert knowledge of domain sales.

I see this as an opportuninty to protect our assets, which could have dreadful implications if we don't!

Please PM me if you're interested and we'll talk 'offline'.

Cheers,

Sneezy.

 

[Jac]

I probably agree with the general gist of what you say. I take it that you are confident that good faith and an attempt to be fair to all prevailed at all times?

I would hope that good faith and fair-play prevails at all times. It's what I would personally wish for (and strive for) in the Nominet/Stakeholder relationship.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

I keep saying this but I'll say it again. Be careful what you wish for. If a domain name is regarded by an English Court as "property" the decision will inevitably spill over into other communications arenas. This will undoubtedly end up increasing costs to end users and result in convoluted contracts between companies and consumers or businesses. It would be naive to think it would be otherwise. IANAL but I know what legal decisions can do to the practicalities of just providing a service.

As beasty points out...domains have not been sold for pence

Nominets involvement in the court case...Will Nominet be impartial the T & C's imply they think a domain name isnt property.

I guess there are two issues. Nominet has a duty to protect the company per se but it also has an responsibility to the stakeholder to respond to their needs. Whether you disagree with Nominet's modus operandi or not, that's what Nominet tries to do; respond to the needs of their customers and stakeholders and that's what they promise in their mission statement and strategy. Why is there this great suspicion that Nominet is not interested in the interests of the stakeholder? It makes no sense when you consider what great lengths Nominet goes to to engage government and its agencies in the overall strategy of the registry as it relates to the worldwide community and it is indeed now a worldwide community. I cite the UN's WSIS and IGF.

Thinking:-

If a domain name was property then the requirement for a renewal would not exist...the renewal fee is created by the renewal itself...job creation

The requirement for renewal was a standard principle already in place at the time of the creation of Nominet UK. Networksolutions (then the registry for .com) had already established the principle of renewal on the world stage and every other single registry has done the same since. I think one needs to consider the infrastructure of the DNS when deciding if a registry deserves a renewal fee or not. The point being that without the infrastructure which tells the world where each domain name can be found on the web, your domain names would not work. Doesn't someone deserve something for keeping your domain names working ad infinitum throughout the years? Nobody in any business can give away stuff for FREE, it simply does not equate in a commercial world where infrastructure costs money, where technology needs updating regularly, and where bandwidth suppliers charge-a-plenty for the multi-homed connectivity required to keep the UK namespace alive.

Maybe Nominet should explain to ALL what they intend to say in the court case...

I would suggest that sub-judice would prevail and Nominet would be foolish (and possibly held in contempt) to make its evidence public before the actual Court hearing.

Land Registry don't have a renewal they cover the charge of holding the registrar by charging for searches, change of ownership etc....

Right, so if you relate the searches and change of ownership back to domain name "renewal" or "transfer", what's the difference? It is only when things need changing or renewing that cost-recovery fees kick in.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Jac, the point missed by the experts and your good self is that a name like bounce is desirable as a trading name because:-

its memorable

short

everyone can spell it

No Lee, the point is not missed by my good self. I also doubt it was missed by the experts who made their decision based on DRS Policy as she was written at the time of this case (just as the courts may refer to "the law" or precedent set in the past).

So to give away a generic word like bounce is outrageous and must be said to be against fair trade...saying that the whole online trading platform favours trade mark holders....so I am surprised to see the government on the nominet pab.............ie. they favour unfair trade

That's an awful lot of assumptions Lee. Who was it who gave away this generic word? Was it the DRS Appeals panel or the respondent? Why didn't the respondent take his case to Court if he felt so strongly about the decision? He had the option to, and apparently the wherewithall, but chose not to. Is he to blame for what you regard as 'outrageous' or the DRS Appeals panel who were just following the written policy?

You have also suggested that the "whole online trading platform favours trademark holders" when you yourself won a DRS Appeal when you thought all was lost. Did that not mean the system worked (for you)?

And why are you surprised to see Government on the PAB? I would be surprised (and concerned) if they were not on the PAB, though as a point of clarity, it is not actually Government who sits on the PAB, it is government agencies (Civil Servants). That aside, the people (i.e. the UK community) should and must be represented at some level, otherwise the PAB is not totally representative of the wider stakeholder communities. I just wish the comments some of you are making on this board were a little more representative and not completely subjective.

Regards
James Conagha

 

[sneezycheese]

the DRS Appeals panel who were just following the written policy?

...you yourself won a DRS Appeal when you thought all was lost. Did that not mean the system worked (for you)?

...So there was he minding his own business, when bam! he gets himself as DRS. He spends hours and days putting together the paperwork neccessary to defend what he thinks is his 'property'. The Experts then makes a decision (based on the policy), which on apeal (again based on the policy) gets overtuned. The individual has just had wasted a load of his time, over £3,500 of his hard earned cash and all the stress associated with the ordeal.

...So has he "WON" as you qouted? I would say not!

Thus is Nominet 'liable' for the c#ck up?

...and what's the incentive for the 'experts' and Nominet to ensure they get it right?

I see cash going in only one direction, dispite the fact they got it wrong.

...No court analogies please, cause they aint the courts.

 

[grandin]

Frustration

Well put sneezy.

I take it the 10 days are up and court action isnt going to happen with bounce.co.uk?

Jac...are you saying that the PAB member with an email address ending cabinet office isnt government?

It surprises me that so many interested parties are happy to put their name to the DRS...as if its some wonderful solution....the calamity of the whole thing is linked to the fact that the drs has been running for many years, a highly resourced advising board exists BUT nothing and i mean nothing has been done to educate the layman who buys a domain name. Big corporates are now intimidating and taking little people to court........

no one likes this but unfortunately its a requirement:- Legal representation is required at the point of sale without it you cannot expect the layman to understand the contract..

I personally think damage limitation would have occurred if at the time of registration the registrant defined the proposed use of the domain name....a computerised check could then be carried out to cross refer to trade marks

Lee

 

[Jac]

Well put sneezy.

Why? Sneezy is stating his personal opinion which is flawed for a number of reasons. The biggest of them being that you sign up to a set of Terms and Conditions each time you register a domain name. It's the same no matter which domain you chose whether .eu, .uk, .com, .au.

No matter how flawed people think the DRS is, it was a policy and procedure put in place to provide a cheaper alternative to the courts. If it wasn't there most small guys would lose their domains by default because they simply wouldn't be able to afford to fight the big guys in court. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would think leaving it to the courts (which is a damned expensive mode of disputing anything) would be better.

And lest you forget, there are some of us working pretty hard to get the DRS modified to take in some of the suggestions outlined by people on this board. So what is all this constant bickering... let's kill the modifications before they've even been put out to consultation?

Give it a chance fir gawd sake!

I take it the 10 days are up and court action isnt going to happen with bounce.co.uk?

WHOIS still shows Mr Toth as registrant so who knows (except perhaps him).

Jac...are you saying that the PAB member with an email address ending cabinet office isnt government?

He is a Crown Servant and/or Civil Servant. He is not an MP or Minister (which equates to government to me).

It surprises me that so many interested parties are happy to put their name to the DRS...

That may be because they do not have the same exceptionally high and (arguably) unreasonable expectations of the UK Registry or its systems as you do. Nothing is perfect; all anyone can do is try their best to make it so. Nominet is listening and trying to improve its systems to meet the suggestions made by some of the people on boards like this one and people like me are constantly in their face about their responsibilities to the wider stakeholder communities.

as if its some wonderful solution....the calamity of the whole thing is linked to the fact that the drs has been running for many years, a highly resourced advising board exists BUT nothing and i mean nothing has been done to educate the layman who buys a domain name. Big corporates are now intimidating and taking little people to court........

no one likes this but unfortunately its a requirement:- Legal representation is required at the point of sale without it you cannot expect the layman to understand the contract..

Lee, there is no requirement on any company offering any service to 'educate' the layman or give legal advice at the point of buying anything. As far as I'm aware the only legal advice a mortgage broker (for instance) has to give is that your home may be repossessed if you miss your repayments. However, in Nominet's case, it is made fairly clear that Terms and Conditions exist and each Tag Holder is obliged by the Tag Holder Agreement to point registrants to these Ts&Cs. So Nominet does its reasonable best to ensure that registrants are aware of their Ts&Cs; indeed, it is a prerequisite of registration that you are aware of and accept them. Nominet is also contactable by telephone, email and letter or if you can get to Oxford, you can walk into their offices and ask to speak to someone. Whilst there's nothing wrong with ranting on fora like this, the quickest and easiest route to get an answer is to contact Nominet itself. You can also contact Nominet with complaints and suggestions for improvement. Don't be surprised if they actually listen, they usually do!

In closing; with reference to Nominet's Terms and Conditions, whilst I accept you think they are long-winded and not clear, I have to say they are reasonably clear to me. I already know what sneezy thinks of them but I think even he would admit he's a tad biased.

That said, I'd be interested to hear viewpoints on how they could be made clearer. Just don't expect legal advice at the point of viewpoint; that's why we have animals like Beasty who charge-a-plenty for it.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

in reply jac

You wrote: Why? Sneezy is stating his personal opinion which is flawed for a number of reasons. The biggest of them being that you sign up to a set of Terms and Conditions each time you register a domain name. It's the same no matter which domain you chose whether .eu, .uk, .com, .au.

I write: T & c's include the drs...the drs says one thing as does something totally different...3aia

you wrote: No matter how flawed people think the DRS is, it was a policy and procedure put in place to provide a cheaper alternative to the courts. If it wasn't there most small guys would lose their domains by default because they simply wouldn't be able to afford to fight the big guys in court. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would think leaving it to the courts (which is a damned expensive mode of disputing anything) would be better.

I write: in the drs the small guy represents themselves...if they go to court they can do the same...they only lose big time if they actually lose. If the deicsion is flawed you have to got to court anyway

You wrote: That may be because they do not have the same exceptionally high and (arguably) unreasonable expectations of the UK Registry or its systems as you do. Nothing is perfect; all anyone can do is try their best to make it so. Nominet is listening and trying to improve its systems to meet the suggestions made by some of the people on boards like this one and people like me are constantly in their face about their responsibilities to the wider stakeholder communities.

I write: I do not have high standards. We all make mistakes BUT when the Domain Owner makes a mistake he loses his domain name and gets his name public known via the drs.........domain name owners have been publicly shamed for not knowing any better...when the experts cock up or the pab then they should be man enough to step forward in shame....mice will be mice...men will be men...who will be men?

you wrote: Lee, there is no requirement on any company offering any service to 'educate' the layman or give legal advice at the point of buying anything. As far as I'm aware the only legal advice a mortgage broker (for instance) has to give is that your home may be repossessed if you miss your repayments.

i write: thats incorrect. If I arrange a residential mortgage I am required to carry out a fact find and provide a key facts illustration..if I dont then I will be in big trouble and be subject to a compensation claim for bad advice.

Lee

 

[sneezycheese]

Why? Sneezy is stating his personal opinion which is flawed for a number of reasons.

...Rather a brash statement Jac. All I was doing was summing up and empathising what I thought was Lee’s situation from his standpoint – It seems as thought I got it right, as Lee replied “Spot on Sneezy”. So unless you know Lee’s mind better than himself I’d retract that statement.

So in fact was I had stated was fact – he HAS had his time wasted, he HAS had over £3,500 of his hard earned cash eaten away by a system so full of holes it’s transparent and he HAS been put under undue stress (i.e. if they’d got it right in the first place he’d be £3,500 better off etc.).

Maybe you can point out how Nominet is accountable to its Registrants...

Is there a quality standards document out there somewhere that it promises to adhere too?

In closing; with reference to Nominet's Terms and Conditions, whilst I accept you think they are long-winded and not clear, I have to say they are reasonably clear to me. I already know what sneezy thinks of them but I think even he would admit he's a tad biased.

...Again as Lee’s has also said, the T&C’s INCLUDE the DRS Policy and Procedure. I could go further on this issue, but I’ll hold on for a while.

...and yes you could say I'm a tad biased - A fair and legible deal for registrants (etc.) - Not too much to ask - Or is it?


I’ll ask these questions again:

1. So has he "WON" as you qouted? I would say not!

2. Thus is Nominet 'liable' for the c#ck up?

3. …and what's the incentive for the 'experts' and Nominet to ensure they get it right?


Finally I think a survey of businesses with their own domain names (i.e. websites) across the country would come up with some interesting answers to the following questions:

1. Do you know who Nominet is?
2. Do you think they are Government ran entity? (i.e. a publicly ran organisation).
3. Did you know they were a private company?
4. What do you think about the fact they are a private company?
5. Do you think your domain name is your property?
6. What would you say if I told that your domain name wasn't your property?

...More questions could be added I'm sure.

 

[Jac]

...Rather a brash statement Jac. All I was doing was summing up and empathising what I thought was Lee’s situation from his standpoint – It seems as thought I got it right, as Lee replied “Spot on Sneezy”. So unless you know Lee’s mind better than himself I’d retract that statement.

You are not the only one who empathises with Lee's viewpoint but someone has to be pragmatic and try to find answers that resolve these issues for the majority of stakeholders. You cannot hope to resolve any conflict in a way that protects wider stakeholder interests if you don't remain open minded or if you remain entrenched in your own standpoint. The nature of stakeholder interests is such that you may not personally like the decisions reached but someone has to make them somewhere and I'll be blunt (it'll save time later) most of the complaining about the DRS comes from a few subscribers on Acorn Domains. Make the time to speak to ordinary registrants who are not privy to the knowledge you guys have and you'll find it is a small minority indeed who object to the way the DRS is run.

And before you go off on one again, that does not mean the PAB and Nominet and other stakeholder groups are not trying to find a better way of doing things. It just means I get frustrated with critiscism for trying and criticism for not trying in the same sentence. It's like Murphy's Law is alive and well and living on Acorn Domains, and Murphy says: "If you perceive there are 4 possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong and circumvent them, a 5th way, unprepared for, will promptly develop." That's the reality of policy making and the reality of court decisions. Everything we do f**ks something else up. It's the law of cause and effect.

Maybe you can point out how Nominet is accountable to its Registrants...

Nominet is held to account by the DTI, OFT, Trading Standards, and other government agencies. There is also the CBI, ICO and Parliamentary bodies. Nominet is held to account by the PAB and other stakeholder bodies. It is even held to account by people like your-good-self going to Oxford and telling them what you think and by making suggestions about quality control which was a damned good suggestion (and is under consideration). So don't start with the Nominet is not accountable nonsense. If it didn't want to be accountable it would have changed it's commercial status at the beginning and set itself up as a Verisign style registry and the members would have been shareholders and the stakeholders would have had a hard job even talking to it. Nominet has indicated it is even more prepared to be accountable in view of the WSIS and IGF and the fact that the world is becoming such a small stakeholder led environment in terms of the internet.

I sometimes think what some of you mean by accountability is 'don't do as I do, do as I say'. Everyone can make a difference but the difference may not be 100% what you (personally) want to see. This is the compromise Parliament and the House of Lords make each and every day because they are bound by a code of conduct to submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate, and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising, in a way that protects wider public interests. For public substitute stakeholder and that is what Nominet is trying to do... but it simply isn't as easy as you seem to think, especially when there are so many diverse opinions about the same thing. That's why compromises have to be sought.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

I write: I do not have high standards.

I think you do have high standards even if you don't seem to realise it. You are highly regarded in your own industry and (correct me if I am wrong) have won awards for your excellence in sales? I'd say that kind of prowess demands high standards and kudos to you. You have also displayed high standards in your expectations of what you want from Nominet.

We all make mistakes BUT when the Domain Owner makes a mistake he loses his domain name and gets his name public known via the drs.........domain name owners have been publicly shamed for not knowing any better...when the experts cock up or the pab then they should be man enough to step forward in shame....mice will be mice...men will be men...who will be men?

For the sake of clarity, a DRS is not caused or brought about by Nominet. It is caused or brought about by a complainant; somebody who believes a domain name is being used abusively. Nominet has no control over who brings a DRS though the DRS was created in response to stakeholder suggestions.

On the issue of people being "pubicly shamed"; I think that's a bit of overkill on your part. There is no shame in losing a domain name dispute and the only reason these things are made public on Nominet's website is because of the openness and transparency which was also requested by stakeholders.

Nominet is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

cough up

I am sorry jac but you are not in my position. You are running a domain name service. Maybe you like being involved with Nominet. You may even like dealing with government personnel. I for one and sneezy I am sure will second this....wrong doing has been done....we have been financially and emotionally effected by the DRS. I do not need this in my life but the fact Nominet havent gracefully offered me a reasonable amount of money to cover my costs disappoints me. 3aia of the Policy is in direct contradiction to Mr Ormands previous assertion....either Nominet or the expert should step in and cough up and clarify the contract.

For a company that makes millions they can't give me £10k?...maybe they are scared to open a floodgate...well get them to post on here a statement saying that the original decision wasnt negligent and have DTI second it

Also have both parties say that to change experts decisions is fair play and something the dti welcomes. We will see mortgage brokers then amending mortgage offers becuase the dti have agreed ...ie. cross out the pay rate 5% and write 2%

Lets remind...Nominet recommended that I go to acorndomains.co.uk for an answer to a question because they werent prepared to re-answer a question already explained on a internet chat room

Nominet say its a nuisance to cancel domain names they prefer to have them transferred...oh well its a nuisance to read the 3 million word contract but it seems we have to do that...eh dti?

In repy:-

You wrote: You are not the only one who empathises with Lee's viewpoint but someone has to pragmatic and try to find answers that resolve these issues for the majority of stakeholders. You cannot hope to resolve any conflict in a way that protects wider stakeholder interests if you don't remain open minded or if you remain entrenched in your own standpoint. The nature of stakeholder interests is such that you may not personally like the decisions reached but someone has to make them somewhere and I'll be blunt (it'll save time later) most of the complaining about the DRS comes from a few subscribers on Acorn Domains.

I write:- Thats funny...Nominet directed me to Acorn Domains...maybe this is repeated often......we all end up at acorn

You wrote: Make the time to speak to ordinary registrants who are not privy to the knowledge you guys have and you'll find it is a small minority indeed who object to the way the DRS is run.

I write: I was not privy to the knowledge either when i bought my domain name. At least you understand that the registrants are disadvantaged by Nominets selective education of registrants via acorn

You wrote: And before you go off on one again, that does not mean the PAB and Nominet and other stakeholder groups are not trying to find a better way of doing things. It just means I get frustrated with critiscism for trying and criticism for not trying in the same sentence.

I write: helping Nominet is not my business, they have enough money to pay the right people to help them. You can get Nominet to re-imburse me thanks for my help so far.

You write: Nominet is held to account by the DTI, OFT, Trading Standards, and other government agencies. There is also the CBI, ICO and Parliamentary bodies.

I write: The dti sent me the wrong leaflet Anyway, the DTI have been observing Nominet. Do they understand that the contract is 3 million words long.........they have observed the contract for 5, 6 7 years???

Lee

 

[Jac]

I am sorry jac but you are not in my position.

Granted.

You are running a domain name service.

No, I'm not.

Maybe you like being involved with Nominet.

Actually it causes me more stress and anxiety than it gives me satisfaction, but I have always said that someone somewhere has to take responsibility for something. I'm a get involved kinda guy just as I'm a get involved kinda guy in other community issues apart from the DNS. The reason is simple, I believe all of us mere mortals have a social responsibility to give back to the communities we take from, just as I believe Nominet should have a corporate social responsibility and even an ethical one. In fact, I personally believe all businesses have a social responsibility to the community they do their business with (but that's just me and probably more than you wanted to know).

You may even like dealing with government personnel.

As above!

I for one and sneezy I am sure will second this....wrong doing has been done....we have been financially and emotionally effected by the DRS.

I won't argue semantics. You believe wrong doing was done though the DRS procedure was followed. Unfortunately the DRS or UDRP or ADR or whatever costs money, that is the nature of registry based dispute resolution services. I know sneezy doesn't like my court analogies but the courts would undoubtedly have cost you more. I accept that any conflict can result in financial and emotional distress; this is unfortunately the nature of conflict and all I can do is offer my empathies. (Been there, wore the T shirt and wrote the movie.)

I do not need this in my life

Why would you think that I do?

but the fact Nominet havent gracefully offered me a reasonable amount of money to cover my costs disappoints me. 3aia of the Policy is in direct contradiction to Mr Ormands previous assertion....either Nominet or the expert should step in and cough up and clarify the contract.

Nominet is legally obliged to follow its written policies and procedures just as (I would assume) you have to follow the written policies and procedures set for your own industry. The problem with the DRS as with any other dispute resolution service is that it is only a minority of people who get caught up in the system and anyone who has ever had anything stressful happen to them will always feel aggrieved. But it is not the system per se that is causing the pain, it is the person on the other side bringing the dispute against you. The system exists to resolve disputes (whether DRS or Arbitration or Court). In all of these systems there are (unfortunately) costs.

For a company that makes millions they can't give me £10k?...maybe they are scared to open a floodgate...well get them to post on here a statement saying that the original decision wasnt negligent and have DTI second it

Lee, to suggest that an original DRS decision could be 'negligent' is like saying that an original court decision could be 'negligent' when the fact is both are open to appeal. The appeals process is part of the system; if it wasn't there I would expect everyone to be jumping up and down complaining, but it is there, and you are still jumping up and down.

Also have both parties say that to change experts decisions is fair play and something the dti welcomes. We will see mortgage brokers then amending mortgage offers becuase the dti have agreed ...ie. cross out the pay rate 5% and write 2%

If something is appealed it has to be possible that the original decision can be overturned... that's what appeals are for. Otherwise why bother with them?

Lets remind...Nominet recommended that I go to acorndomains.co.uk for an answer to a question because they werent prepared to re-answer a question already explained on a internet chat room

Nominet say its a nuisance to cancel domain names they prefer to have them transferred...oh well its a nuisance to read the 3 million word contract but it seems we have to do that...eh dti?

I don't know about any of this so I'll have to pass on making any comment.

I write: helping Nominet is not my business,

Nor is it mine.

I write: The dti sent me the wrong leaflet Anyway, the DTI have been observing Nominet. Do they understand that the contract is 3 million words long.........they have observed the contract for 5, 6 7 years???

Contracts are often unnecessarily long but that's the nature of contracts. How many words are in your mortgage contracts?

In conclusion:
If you feel you have a legitimate case for compensation take legal advice and get Nominet into Court. Personally, I'd be happy to see some sort of precedent set in this instance so you feel justice has been done.

Regards
James Conaghan