paul

Crazy

I echo Edwins coments and find several things just too hard to believe.

1. A £10 charge to file a case, how will that change anything?

2. From what I can make out, now claimants don't even need to have rights to a name any more! just that they would like it.

I wonder how many big sites will be temporarily taken down for a day or two before Nominet find themselves in court

grantw

When do these changes take effect? I need some time to get a good list of domains with uncontactable registrants together and to save up some 'try it on for a tenner' tokens

Grant

__________________
Domain Brokerage :: Bulk UK Whois :: Property Insurance

paul

Sometime after that I guess.

keys

This is disturbing and it does appear to be radical change in the DRS process. The crucial factor is the apparent absence of any need for a claim to pass a test of validity, if there is no response from the Registrant.

Offering a small window of opportunity to reverse any wrong decisions seems like a gesture of appeasement. Is there now a presumption that the Claimant is right unless the respondent can effectively defend an action?

I hope that Nominet can clarify the matter, and not implement a policy giving obvious bias to either side.

Beasty

As far as I am aware, this paper has yet to pass the PAB and the Board. Could a Board member please confirm or deny whether this has been approved as board (as opposed to executive) policy please? It is described as an "Executive Paper" on the PAB agenda.

Therefore, whilst it is written as though this is what is going to happen, there is an opportunity to stop/change this. However, since it has been produced only 6 days before the PAB have been asked to approve it, time is short.

For a start, I advise anyone who has an interest in .uk domains to contact the elected PAB by email and say this at the very least - more if you have any specific thoughts.

The Executive Paper is a radical change from the consensus/median responses to the consultation. There are some particularly worrying elements that did not form any part of the formal consultation, while many other "off list" responses do not even merit a mention - despite having been raised by far more respondents than some of those that are included. Further, it has been produced at such short notice before the PAB meeting that the PAB should not reach a conclusion on the matter at the meeting of 11 July.

Instead more time should be given to allow for a properly considered response from the PAB. Time should be allowed for PAB members to seek feedback from stakeholders. The mater should be passed to the next PAB meeting and no response or endorsement should be given by the PAB at this time - other than to request from the Board a reasonable amount of time to form a view and respond.

Here are the email addresses to use:

pab-feedback@nominet.org.uk

pab@whois-search.com

james@conaghan.me.uk

clive@demon.net

nominet@subhi.com

m@rk-healey.co.uk

alex@mistral.net

pab@jarrodrobinson.co.uk

pab@toth.biz

ericramage.nom-pab@ramage.co.uk

nominet-pab@gordon.me.uk

grandin

Quote 'review function prior to decisions being issued. Its purpose will be to highlight inconsistencies, errors, and to act as quality control. For example, if the group comes across errors, they can refer the decision back to the expert for correction. Tony Willoughby, the current Chairman of our panel of experts, has agreed to lead this group. Members of the Expert Review Group will no longer take decisions under the DRS,'

So does this mean that only one expert truely exists and the others are merely writers

Lee

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

retired_member12

A valuable lesson to learn for all registrants & ISPs, keep the contact details accurate & up to date, that's if you want to hold on to your domains.

One can't help feeling though that it is intended to deter current registrants from keeping their mouths shut to avoid comprimising themselves in a DRS response. In other words, it's forcing volume registrants to respond or else face the prospect of losing their domain(s). If you go one stage further on this, you could envisage volume registrants having to produce an awful lot of responses to avoid default decisions. That looks like a stick to hit them with to me, and you'll very quickly see the 'registrants with 3 DRS's' list increase in size as a result.

In the case of names of dissolved companies, it opens up opportunities which previously ONLY went to the drop.

I don't think having rights in generics will be so easy to prove using this method, in much the same way as it is at the moment.

Beasty

You don't need to prove "Rights" under this proposal - just file a Complaint and if there is no Response pay your £200 and "Bob's your Domain"! Or have I mis-read the proposal?

Nigel

Thanks for the email contacts at Nominet Beasty. I'm looking at proposing a safeguard to stop the £10 Nominet lottery ticket fiasco. If it's 3 DRS's and you're published on a list then surely if an company/individual fails in 3 £10 DRS attempts then they should similarly be named and shamed and disqualified from bringing DRSs for a certain period. Sounds fair. What do you all think?

Reddy

So, the way I see it, someone will be able to submit speculative DRSs (say 50 at a cost £500) for some really juicy domains, on the hope that at least one of the Registrants doesn't respond in time (they could pick on overseas registrants).

They gamble £500 on the hope they may just get lucky and get awarded a premium domain by default for another £200! But whatever happens, you've got a lot of organisations/people having to waste time and money responding to the DRS submissions.

If you're the Registrant of a particularly nice domain, you could find yourself having to continually respond to spurious DRS submissions, just to keep your name.