rob

There are a couple of current experts putting their replies in - but as individuals, perhaps they ought to be labelled as such?

Whois-Search

Try saying the same thing to the PAB

LeeOwen

So how can they make such a glaring mistake and forget the respondent has a right to reply, what pay £2k and stop the respondent/defendent from a right to apply, oh yes that's clever. Perhaps they're trying a sly one and hoping it becomes nominet law for three years by mistake.

rob

haha

I had a crack at the PAB's reply as well.

• I find the PAB’s reply to the consultation disturbing: “
We believe that isolated offers to sell a domain, or “pay per click” activity are not of themselves evidence of abuse but done “in bulk”, can be such evidence. We feel that registering many domains, taken in context with other factors can be evidence of abuse. Indeed, it may be that registration of a number of domains without a clear reason why this has been done is evidence of abuse.”

If this is taken up users will have to start justifying if they own over X domain names, and I assume Nominet would decide if that was a valid reason. If this was to come into practice then it is not hard to avoid by having different entities owning the names under the threshold level.

Incidentally would Nominet then brand large organizations such as the BBC as conducting abusive registrations as they own large numbers of domain names?

bb99

I wonder what happens how - presumably someone at Nominet has to somehow summarise these results into a digestable form and then they can be discussed/statistised to try and formulate a new policy. That's one shitty job that I wouldn't fancy doing*.

Presumably the new policy will just be what it is and there will be no further scope for consultation / voting / whatever? I dunno.




* not least because I don't own a roller or any white paint

__________________
Gazebo | Murcia Golf Apartment | Business cards, postcards, letterheads, etc | Self Storage Guide | Tree Surveys | Professional Indemnity Insurance | Alloy Wheel Repairs in Leeds

rob

I was thinking the same - perhaps we ought to have a predictions thread

LeeOwen

Policy 501, DRS Proceadure 101 Mark 253 Part A Numeral 3 Section 2 Visavis Rule 2,304,567

Removal of brain is a possiblity with regards the idiot recommending domainers pay fees yet don't receive any when they win - submitted by Lee Owen.

bb99

Aah, it says on t'Nominet website:

Whois-Search

Ms Taylor wrote the last DRS consultation summary:

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

Then as its on PDP long track it will go to the board in a month?

http://www.nic.uk/policy/develop/long/

Then maybe back to the PAB.

And if you really want another conspiracy theory have a look who RBS (17 DRS cases) register their names with:

http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois...uery=rbs.co.uk

Then have a look at who is the CEO of netnames.co.uk and on the Nominet
board. http://www.nic.uk/governance/board/

Then read this: http://w3.netbenefit.co.uk/news.cfm?...&DisplayID=177

And this: http://www.netnames.co.uk/dnrs/netnames.client.Login

Conflict of interest?

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

Nigel

Thanks for the reminder and links on this Beasty

Just completed the online survey. Seemed quite straightforward and didn't take too long. Couple of hours left if you haven't done it yet.