Crusader-K

Nominet is paying the Nominet DRS - Experts Review Group to review the Nominet Experts own decisions.

The 5 members of the Nominet DRS Experts Review Group are :

Phil Roberts
Claire Milne
David King
Nick Gardner
Ian Lowe

plus the Chair of Experts, Tony Willoughby

One of the functions of the Experts Review Group is to review the Nominet Experts decisions (quote) :

If they feel that the decision was:

1. particularly good or bad;
2. out of keeping with the DRS practice; or
3. raises an interesting issue.

However, the Experts Review cannot change a decision - even for a bad decision. This isnt exactly much consolation for a registrant who has been ordered by a Nominet Expert to lose their domain name. Instead, a respondent must spend £3000 appealling a Nominet Expert's decision as was the case with mercer.co.uk (original mercer.co.uk DRS decision). .

The Nominet Expert who decided that the mercer.co.uk respondent must lose their domain name in the first place was David King.

rob

I hope they use a circular table when they meet otherwise someone will have to get up and continue the back patting chain.

sneezycheese

...I'm now in no doubt now that Nominet is run by those that either have no understanding of procedural testing, or very little regard for it! - i.e. you DO NOT employ those within the process to do the auditing! - In addition auditors 'normally' have some kind of powers to change things!

I do hope that Nominet are not trying to take us for idiots!

I'm appalled - this is nothing more than lip service - if that!

Nominet disgust me!

Stop playing games Nominet and start doing some real work!!!

Regards,

Sneezy.

PS: The first line...

...Now the issue of quality control was something I raised some time ago (and I offered my services, which were not taken up) - Now I know A LOT about Q.C. and I can tell you that what's on the table here is utter bullshit with regards to Quality Control - why... the magic words...(1) QUALITY, and (2) CONTROL,... i.e. they have an active 'there and then' meaning! - No more needs to be said!

retired_member17

I mentioned "sedo" in a DRS negotiation. The expert did not know who they are or what they do or how it works.

Retraining always an option.

retired_member6

Really? that's a joke aint it. What were they an expert on, the ripeness of potatoes before making wine?

olebean

His views are well known

sneezycheese

Another 'missleading' statement from Nominet:

...If this were to be true, Nominet would have outsourced the writing of the DRS Policy, management and any subsequent review and amendment of said policy etc.! - It would suspect it would then be called something like UDRP, just like most other sensible registries do! - As Hazel said before KISS

Nominet should venture into the fudge production business and open a fudge factory, converting their cash mountain in to a fudge mountain instead! - Sorry they do that already.

PS: I still can't get over the B.S. about Q.C. - 'sinking to new depths' comes to mind!

domaingenius

Another problem I have with DRS is the cost of the appeal process. IF the DRS is truly meant to provide a "cheap" alternative to the Courts then why are they charging £3000 for a an appeal to be lodged ?. It is grossly unfair to allow a complainant to issue a complaint for £750 and then expect a respondent to pay £3000 to recover from any position that complaint puts him in. £3000 would allow you to issue 10 x appeals in the Courts so why so damn expensive ?. Also ,what if the respondent has no money to pay ?. The Courts allow fee exemption but what does Nominet allow ?.

The DRS and Nominet are becoming farcically incompetent and ONE SIDED (in reaching that conclusion I include what I know that is not yet public). I think too many big business interests have managed to corrupt the system and I am sure that Mr Gilbert is not on our side at all but more on the big business side !!.I dont like to judge someone by what they look like or what profession they are from but...

DG

Whois-Search

What gets me half of them are also on the WIPO panelist list:

Nick Gardner

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/p...dner-nickj.pdf

Tony Willoughby

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/p...ughby-tony.pdf

Ian Lowe

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/p...s/lowe-ian.pdf

See Full list here:

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service


So you have 'experts' like Tony Willoughby deciding cases based upon the UDRP rules:

WayneRooney.com WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2006-0916

And then doing the DRS appeal on mercer.co.uk based upon another set of rules:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAss...cer_appeal.pdf

__________________
Andrew Bennett
www.whois-search.com - www.whois-register.com - www.domain-shop.co.uk

grandin

It is decided by the contract. If you sign the contract as a business you agree to the rules as written. Nominet has a right to offer business contracts on whatever terms it wishes it is upto you to refuse them.

The only issues I see are:-

You can't have consumers being taken to court based on this extensive contract that requires the registrant to have an understanding of trade mark law. I personally see the DTI's seat on the PAB as a slap in the face to all small businesses....they are happy to oversee Trading Standards who fine companies for various unfair contracts but sit on the PAB and don't advise or report the 3 million word contract???? If they don't fine Nominet for not effectively distinguishing between consumer and business then maybe brown is right....can the DTI

and

No competitor exists, Nominet have a monopoly over the .co.uk. A business has no choice but to accept the rules that Nominet offer if the business is to operate effectively online in the UK.

__________________
Buy To Let Mortgages Buy To Let mortgages Discount Mortgages landlord insurance
student loan Commercial Mortgages Fixed Mortgages UK Hotels UK Holidays