The PAB's mandate.

[Jac]

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

Don't start with this subjective drivel Lee! You started this wierd and wonderful vendetta, not me. But in any case, you are completely disregarding the fact that a DRS review is already in the offing and Jac had something to do with that. I may annoy you but it doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things what you think of me and frankly, I now couldn't care less. I did when I invited you to the Acorn meeting at Nominet in June which was obviously the action of a Jac that couldn't care less wasn't it? And if you choose to remember correctly, I actually spoke up for sneezycheese quite forcefully at that meeting, but that was obviously because I couldn't care less too, wasn't it?

But here's something else to remember. I am not on the PAB to be liked; and I don't expect to be liked; and sometimes, I wouldn't want to be! I am on the PAB to do what I can to help the other 15 people on the PAB to do their level best to arrive at solutions that will be to the benefit of the wider stakeholder communities. That means everybody, not just me or you but everybody. Those solutions may or may not be to your individual liking, they are often not to mine, but they are arrived at in the interests of the wider stakeholder communities. That's the difference between you and me. You only think of your own grievances, I try to think of everybody's; even yours; but in your wierd and wonderful estimation, that's obviously because I don't care.

Jac has every respect and consideration for those who have problems and not just with the DRS, but he doesn't have to put up with your kind of nonsense just because you think he should. So if you are going to continually denigrate me, at least have the good grace to get your facts right.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

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

That is akin to saying the courts don't cater for the 5 million when the fact is, for all its alleged faults, the DRS was set up to do specifically that; cater for the 5 million. Lest you forget, it is a minority who have issues with it. Spooky how people who have no issues seem to remain silent, but I guess that's the way of the world and the human species.

And why presenting the facts can annoy a group of people so much is beyond me. I would have thought every reasonable person would want to know how other stakeholders or stakeholder groups felt about the issues, but instead people seem to want to remain cocooned within their own beliefs.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[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?

But to answer your questions in context....

No, I am not saying the court route should be avoided in favour of the DRS. But when a court case (for the sake of argument) may cost £30k upwards and a DRS appeal (currently) costs £3k... which do you think the average stakeholder might choose? Even so, if an appeal is lost, the courts are still an option if they choose to go that route.

And no, I am not saying that cheap and wrong is better than expensive; that is an inference on your part and not at all what I said. FWIW, cheap and right would be preferable (except that 'right' is subjective innit)?

Why don't I just ask you to write my answers for me in the future and then you can dispense with these duplicitous inferences?

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

Whats weird

Jac...the DRS doesn't cater for the 5 million thats why I am sure it will be changed

Clearly if my assertions are wrong then Trading Standards will not file to the courts and no fines will be issued....I made an observation and rightfully reported it as per the recommendation by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry....whats weird about that?

Lee

 

[tmsdomreg]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred
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

It sounds like a good idea, and in a sense it is... whilst there are some doubts about decisions and the basis on which the decisions are arrived at.

But what criteria would this "review panel" work on? And how can they be made any better than those upon which the original Expert Opinion was made?

I think we need to get it as correct as possible from Stage 1- which is what the DRS Review will, hopefully, achieve - although the formation of a DRS "Watchdog" panel is certainly, IMO, worth discussion.

Peter

Peter

 

[Jac]

Jac...the DRS doesn't cater for the 5 million thats why I am sure it will be changed

If you respond to what I wrote and not what you think I wrote, we might stop bitching at each other long enough to understand each other. I wrote: "for all its alleged faults, the DRS was set up to do specifically that; cater for the 5 million." That's what it was set up to do. It is obvious an important minority of people have issues with the current policy and procedure and that is why it is being reviewed (hopefully) very soon and (hopefully) with public meetings on the subject that all interested parties can attend.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Hazel Pegg]

My revised solution:-

Some interesting suggestions in there. I think I'll save your post and read it a few more times before replying properly.

Hazel