The PAB's mandate.

[grandin]

renewal fees

Hi aql...It shouldn't be needed given Nominet have a huge surplus...anyway it would probably work out as a max of a £1 on 5 million registrations. anyway given the huge surplus maybe they are processing domain names for £4 but charging out at £5.....Nominet like to squeezy costs so I am sure they could provide this service without adding to costs....better than paying fines

Lee

 

[grandin]

jac

jac you wrote 'washing machines have to do with any of these issues.'

Go back and read your own posts and decide whether you are reasonable like Hazel or unreasonable Jac.

Lee

 

[Jac]

jac you wrote 'washing machines have to do with any of these issues.'

Go back and read your own posts and decide whether you are reasonable like Hazel or unreasonable Jac.

Lee

I would not be so presumptuous as to think I was anything like Hazel who, incidentally, knows me and my motivations a lot better than you think you do; so I might take this kind of audacity from her, but I think it's a bit rich coming from someone who in my opinion is about as unreasonable as I have seen in my lifetime.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Yes Hazel, A tricky one but the best one would be this:-
You have stats given the number of cases brought to the DRS.

Actually I don't - though I could probably get them. Not that they'd be much use to me as maths, stats, etc, just don't make sense to me. Is there a word that describes that in the same way that dyslexia applies to problems with written words?

You can provide a good projection (drs cases are likely to increase with a sharp curve upwards).

I agree.

I've now snipped some stuff to save a few electrons ...

If the Complainant loses the appeal he will be contracted to reimburse Nominet for out of pocket expenses ie. £3000).

Seems a reasonable idea.

If the customer loses the appeal fee its recovered by INCREASED RENEWAL FEES...increase renewal fees now accross the board ).

Not so sure about this one. If the customer loses then why should the costs be borne by someone else? If I am taken to court and lose a case than I still have to pay my legal team.

Reword the first decision to be similar to the Patent Office ie. 'Preliminary Indication'....both parties can pull out/give up if they so wish. The prelimnary indication could also give a resolution ie....if the domain name owner stops using ppc and gives an undertaken to set up a legitimate website within 90 days then the domain name owner should keep the name

Interesting suggestion. I'll think about it and give you a considered response when I get back from my drug induced trance to some semblance of sanity.

Hazel

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Hazel who, incidentally, knows me and my motivations

I am happy to confirm that James' motivations are 100% good. But, like me, he doesn't always express himself in a way that makes that clear. I am infamous within Nominet for being a 'speak first, think later' kind of person. That may not come across when I type, but ask anyone who has met me face to face and they will confirm that I am a mouthy cow who often has to retract what she has just stated.

James may come across as a bit of an antagonistic so-and-so, but having worked with him at PAB meetings and sub-committees over the past few years I will say that his intentions are sound and that he is not only willing to listen to all points of view but is also willing to present points of view with which he does not personally agree.

So can we all please stop the personal insults/antagonism? I'm only reading/contributing to this forum because I see faults with the current DRS and a lot of you here have personal experience of being on the receiving end of the system that I don't have. I want to hear what you have to say. I want to know what the problems are. I want to see proposed solutions such as that offered by 'grandin'.

What I don't want is to wade through a 'bitch-fest' where people are more interested in scoring points than making constructive points.

Hazel

 

[retired_member11]

Hi aql...It shouldn't be needed given Nominet have a huge surplus...anyway it would probably work out as a max of a £1 on 5 million registrations. anyway given the huge surplus maybe they are processing domain names for £4 but charging out at £5.....Nominet like to squeezy costs so I am sure they could provide this service without adding to costs....better than paying fines

Lee

Yes, a huge surplus which is held off shore for reasons of tax efficiency. Increasing the reg fee isn't the answer.
The DRS fee structure is a charter for the chancer brigade. It must change....soon.

 

[grandin]

for argo

argo you said 'the reg fee isn't the answer.'

What you never had you would not miss.....I am sure Nominet can pay for it with current renewal fees....better to have that than Nominet to build up a big legal fund to fight their way out of court

Lee

 

[retired_member11]

Perhaps I've lost the thread of this thread.

In summary, the DRS needs tweaking. Some Experts seem unable to read the clauses of the Policy, and the fee structure is weighted in favour of Complainants having a punt. Time for change.

 

[fred]

Yes Hazel, A tricky one but the best one would be this:-

You have stats given the number of cases brought to the DRS. You can provide a good projection (drs cases are likely to increase with a sharp curve upwards).

The complainant is not the customer therefore he should always pay the complaint fee (no change here). The benefit to the complainant is its cheaper than the courts.

Appeal

If the customer feels he wants to Appeal (which is likely given what I propose below) then the complaint will move to Appeal (Appeal will be the same as now in respect to the number of experts on the panel but the fee is a little different as detailed below)

If the Complainant loses the appeal he will be contracted to reimburse Nominet for out of pocket expenses ie. £3000

If the customer loses the appeal fee its recovered by INCREASED RENEWAL FEES...increase renewal fees now accross the board

The benefits:- Alot more opinions will be given by so called 'experts' and therefore everyone can thrash out a policy that bloody works.

Complainants are less likely to 'try their luck'

Reword the first decision to be similar to the Patent Office ie. 'Preliminary Indication'....both parties can pull out/give up if they so wish. The prelimnary indication could also give a resolution ie....if the domain name owner stops using ppc and gives an undertaken to set up a legitimate website within 90 days then the domain name owner should keep the name.

Disadvantage:- Will take long time, customers are likely to appeal. Increase in renewal fees

Lee

Having read this, then gone away and thought about it, I can't see this working as EVERY losing respondant could go to appeal whether they had the remotest chance of winning or not. At which point the question becomes, why bother with a 2 stage process and not just go straight to the appeal stage?

While I agree that something needs to change, I can't see this being it.

Maybe there should be an 'appeals panel' of some sort who do an assessment at no cost to either party and have the power to order a 're-trial'?

 

[grandin]

To fred

Don't forget my idea is to change the one expert first stage decision to a 'Preliminary Indication'...not binding and confidential. It would sit nicely after the mediation stage and where possible provide an alternative resolution ie. the expert could recommend that the domain name owner takes an undertaking to commence his email service within 90 days.. The Complainant pays the fee (no change)

If after the Preliminary Indication the complainant feels confident he can go forward to the three panel decision (ie. old Appeal decision)….


Nominet charge the complainant in one of the following ways:-

1 Pay a £3k fee
2 Pay a £3k fee if he loses (Nominet would have to cover the cost of customer losing if Nominet use this option)
3 Pay a £2k fee (no matter if you win or lose OR Pay nothing before decision but pay £3k if you lose)

The DRS must take into account that most domain name owners are laymen and the customer does not want to afford a £3k fee.

Notes

The current mediation service is free ie. the domain name owner is already funding this without feeling the cost

Nominet’s ‘penny pinching’ approach could create further savings to be invested in this DRS

Nominet has already got a big stash of cash

Many, many things to think about but if you want a DRS for free I would personally get Jac to write it…

 

[Jac]

....as I said to Nominet the DRS was introduced too early. The law had
not decided what was law...

For the record, the "One in a Million" case went before the courts in 1997 and pre-dated the introduction of the original DRS so you are incorrect to say the law had not decided what was law before the DRS was introduced. The "One in a Million" case set some hefty precedent which courts still refer to today.

The courts can be a very costly exercise, especially if one loses.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

One in million V 5 million

If one in a million was as you say then the Policy would not state MAY it would have clearly defined rules.....and we would all be happy....

Get a grip jac...one in a million doesnt cater for the 5 million

Lee

 

[retired_member11]

For the record, the "One in a Million" case went before the courts in 1997 and pre-dated the introduction of the original DRS so you are incorrect to say the law had not decided what was law before the DRS was introduced. The "One in a Million" case set some hefty precedent which courts still refer to today.

The courts can be a very costly exercise, especially if one loses.

Regards
James Conaghan

Are you saying the court route is to be avoided in favour of DRS?

Are you saying that cheap and wrong is better than (potentially) expensive and (one would expect) right?

 

[grandin]

well said

Well said argo...argos is cheap and cheerful

I am a trade mark holder and been subject to the DRS...I still do not know right from wrong...jac seems to play things down.....ie. that it is easy peasy to assess rights....I disagree...therefore the only resolution is to give people a second chance....you can't transfer a £5k domain name IF the domain name holder didnt know any better

Jac annoys me....I get PM's from Acorn members saying that their home life has suffered cause of the obsession with the DRS....to those that have been through the DRS they have been personally attacked...jac has no respect for this....he enjoys the banter and takes advantage of those that need to diverse from this and earn a living.....jac cut it out...you need to think of others...let Hazel take over

Lee

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Having read this, then gone away and thought about it, I can't see this working as EVERY losing respondant could go to appeal whether they had the remotest chance of winning or not.

That is one of the flaws that I saw.

Hazel

 

[gordon]

Maybe there should be an 'appeals panel' of some sort who do an assessment at no cost to either party and have the power to order a 're-trial'?

Sounds like one to explore in the review. I'm seeing people that seem to be coming to this sort of answer (give or take exact process) from different directions, which is promising that there might just be some common ground on this to make into the review...

Gordon

 

[Hazel Pegg]

jac cut it out...you need to think of others...let Hazel take over

I'm not sure what to make of the above? So Jac annoys you? OK. I could produce a list of people that annoy me. But why would I want to do so? How would it help move anything forwards?

I'm still here hoping that I will see some constructive suggestions as to how to improve the DRS. But I'm beginning to feel that my time could be spent elsewhere.

Hazel

 

[grandin]

thinking

will think about

 

[Jac]

Are you saying the court route is to be avoided in favour of DRS?

Are you saying that cheap and wrong is better than (potentially) expensive and (one would expect) right?

No. YOU ARE.

 

[grandin]

DRS Procedure

My revised solution:-

Issues:-

Acorn members (Nominet members?) feel strongly over the DRS
Complainant’s are unlikely to use the DRS if fees are raised significantly
Laymen customers do not truly understand Trade Mark law
Complainants who do not have unequivocal rights to the name get given a remedy of transfer to the complainant
Nominet should not cough up £3k for every Customer Appeal
Clever lawyers can take advantage of laymen who own domain names by approaching them in a certain manner…entrapment

I Recommend:-

The Complainant before bringing a complaint must:-

Establish whether they have unequivocal rights to the name (ie. How likely is it that another person/business will want to use that name)? Have you checked to see if other companies have a trade mark in the same name or other websites are using the same name or whether Companies House have recorded the same name as part/whole of a company name.

If you do not have unequivocal rights to the name you must follow this procedure:-

Write to the domain name owner (evidence must be provided with the complaint ie. proof of receipt by the domain name owner). In accordance with the Policy the letter must state:-

Whilst we do not have unequivocal rights to the domain name we are of the opinion that the USE of the domain name is abusing our rights. In particular we refer to 3.….. of Nominet’s Policy (state the abusive policy wording) and then state what the domain name owner is doing that is abusive.

In accordance with Nominet’s complainant’s procedure we provide you with 5 working days to cease abusing our rights. If you do not cease we will file our complaint to Nominet under the DRS.

Note: If you comply within 5 working days but later reinstate the USE that is abusive we will provide no further notice and file our complaint.

The Complaint

The Complainant can either apply under ‘unequivocal rights’ option OR ‘non unequivocal rights’ option.

For the ‘unequivocal rights’ option the process should be very quick and cheap for the complainant:-

The complainant pays fee £? (small maybe £400)….the expert carries out a check for ‘unequivocal rights’….

If the expert agrees that the ‘complainant’ has unequivocal rights then the Respondent must prove that the name is being used as a tribute/criticism to the complainant. If no evidence is forthcoming the expert gives a verdict of transfer to the complainant.

If the expert does not find that the complainant has ‘unequivocal rights’ and the complainant hasn’t followed the ‘non equivocal rights’ procedure then the complaint will be rejected. The Complainant will be told to follow the procedure in respect to the ‘‘non unequivocal rights’ option.

For the ‘non unequivocal rights’ option the process is as follows:-

The complainant pays fee £? (maybe same as now)….The expert verifies that the Complainant has followed the correct procedure (ie. sending the letter to the domain name owner). The expert will also check to see if the Respondent has complied with the Complainant’s request.

If the expert finds that the USE as described by the Complainant is abusive AND feels that the Respondent should have complied with the Complainant’s request then the expert will order that the Respondent pays the Complainant’s costs ( ie. pay the decision fee only) AND complies with the Complainant’s request within 5 working days. The Respondent can decide to allow the transfer to the Complainant and incur no costs.

If the expert finds that the USE as described by the complainant in its letter to the domain name owner is not abusive BUT finds on another point that the Respondent has been abusive then he will NOT order costs to be paid by the respondent BUT request a resolution to be carried out by the respondent within 5 working days .

Any decision can be Appealed:-

Domain Name owners RIGHTS on Appeal (for being a Customer)

He may within 5 working days of the initial decision being given apply to Nominet for Appeal Funding. MEMBERS will get copy of the Funding Request. Members will get to discuss the request on Non-Steer or similar for 5 working days. They will then Vote (via electronic secure log in) on whether it is in the interest of all members to allow funding for the appeal. If funding is allowed then Nominet will pay….if too much funding occurs then clearly Nominet have the right to increase renewal fees…members spent the money on Appeal Funding!!!

On this basis I may even become a member!!

Lee