stevebrowne

Can we just send a zip to Nominet file with a response for every domain name every month (or whatever the minimum time to respond is) just in case anything has been DRSd and gets lost in the post?

__________________
Some good domains, some bad domains.

rob

Just for the record - as I have had three people ask tonight - along the lines of 'oi rob, i voted for you to sort it out'

As per my PAB statement (Robert Taylor - Nominet Policy Advisory Body Election) my views on the DRS , and submission are on http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAss...uk_Limited.pdf . It is interesting re-visiting the issues raised by the consultation to see which ones Nominet took on board.

With my PAB hat on (its quite a trendy one) I have to point out that the PAB side of things have to encompass all stakeholders from the smaller hobby domainer up to the big corp who wants to sue his/her ass to get a domain.

I do, with whatever headgear, believe that there can be a low cost mediation service that both protects legit domainers and enables rights holders to stop cybersquatters, all applied in a sensible and fair manner.

I do not think it is quite there yet, and whenever I get a chance to add my 10p's worth I will

__________________
Eat more chips! Dont let salad win!
I am rob who runs hey. Subscribe to get my .UK sales list - its where the deals are!

GreyWing

It's going to cause a lot of problems and nominet is opening itself up to legal challenges in my opinion.

Ill thought out and not enough safeguards.

__________________
Instant Decision Loans Free Radio Unlock Codes avoid Poker Stats Carry On Council

afx

Rob,

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, (just in the from the pub) but considering you appear to be a domainer first and foremost, (prior to your engagement on the PAB) I would have thought you would have stronger views questioning the autocratic nature of these changes by Nominet.

Given how savagely unpopular the default transfer was, I thought someone involved with the aftermarket who secured the vote of most of the people on this board would have more to say on this announcement.

If for example you decide to take a three week holiday in a jungle somewhere and come back to find some chancing schmuk now owns music/co.uk, I would hazard a guess that you might be slightly miffed.

If a legal precedent is set that defines domains as "property" and the above example were to happen, then IMO these changes to the DRS by Nominet will be in direct breach of "Article 1 of the first protocol - Protection of property" in the "1998 Human Rights Act".

GreyWing

That precedent has already been established by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

__________________
Instant Decision Loans Free Radio Unlock Codes avoid Poker Stats Carry On Council

rob

Hi,

Very true

I do have strong views on the DRS (read my feedback to consulation PDF and various public posts) and am very disappointed that not only have Nominet have ignored my free perfect advice, but also ignored common complaints from others - the default transfer issue is one obvious point.

The DRS itself still remains free to start, yet the respondant now is all but oblidged to file a reply which can cost time and money. A sensible counter measure would be a small upfront fee to prevent widespread chancing. What would happen if a few big tagholders DRS'ed each other on every name I do not know, however it would indicate at least one flaw in the current system.

The 'autocratic' nature of Nominets implementation of the new policy and procedure is how the system currently works roughly: Policy proposed and kicked about with consultation and Nominet take all feedback and make it firm.

It also puts Nominet in a different ballpark with regards to renewals and the like

One reason for starting this topic, as well as making people aware of changes, is to kick off a debate about what bits Nominet have got right and which bits people feel they have got wrong. Please post and debate it, people do read this forum!

Let me start - how about the bit where a respondant can prove that the domain is not abusive:

d. Trading in domain names for profit, and holding a large portfolio of domain names, are of themselves lawful activities. The Expert will review each case on its merits.


Why is the last sentance required? Surely it clashes with the 'three strikes' rule?


e. Sale of traffic (i.e. connecting domain names to parking pages and earning click-per-view revenue) is not of itself objectionable under the Policy. However, the Expert will take into account:
i. the nature of the Domain Name;
ii. the nature of the advertising links on any parking page associated with the Domain Name; and
iii. that the use of the Domain Name is ultimately the Respondent’s responsibility.

So parking pages are ok, however may not be ok if the domain/advert is dodgy. Even though the wording is clunky, it is a step forward in having it written in that parking is not abusive. The issue is does one related advert mean the domain is abusive, or a full page of ads? The section iii would indicate the policy takes the view that automated keyword settings is not a valid defence.

A step forward yes, but not black and white.

There are some very good plus points, such as the online filing to be improved and linked in with the online systems. That is more of an operational issue rather than policy, so there is the question why was it not done sooner

The Expert Review Group has been formed, it mentioned it will be made up of experts who will not represent parties in DRS proceedings (although other members of their firms may do so). Again, steps in the right direction but not all the way.

The DRS Policy/Procedure/Execution is far from perfect but as I said in my previous post I feel it is moving the right way for everyone involved. I am certainly not over the moon with this current incarnation

__________________
Eat more chips! Dont let salad win!
I am rob who runs hey. Subscribe to get my .UK sales list - its where the deals are!

Jeewhizz

I think that it's a step in the right direction, but not fully thought out. 'Domain DRS Tasting' certainly seems like a viable option for people who aren't wholly honest... And should a domain be transferred 'illegally', will the registrant have a right to sue Nominet for loss of earnings?

Jee

__________________
UK Web Design & Development
Airport Car Parking | Business Help & Advice

grandin

Whats interesting about parking pages is the relatively small revenue.....the domain name in itself maybe more worthy than the small misdirected traffic ....in the myspace case the experts acknowledged that the use was technically abusive in the sense that the complainant could have sort an injunction.... but damages were likely to be insignificant as ads revenue would have been low...everyone knows it wasnt myspace homepage....a generic name that happens to be wrongly optimised by the parking page computer should not result in the transfer of a generic domain names....if the complainant wants to seek damages he could but would probably be settled out of court for a silly figure....$4.54 ....two years revenue...An expert should do as in the myspace case....state the abuse and no action....if however, the domain holder fails to take down the parking page then maybe the complainant can then seek an injunction for the domain name holder being purposefully obstructive.

Lee

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