grandin

James you wrote:- My point was, that the dictionary is constantly changing and words keep getting added; which is why I said it could be its own nemesis; because you are trying to make a decision based on something that may have changed at the precise moment of judgement.

I write:- so you don't bother trying....we all know you have to take a cut at a given time....

Lee

olebean

Lee

I some ways I agree with you

Even if I had placed Ronaldinho related content on there, would that mean I had committed an offence? If I had, does that mean the 3,950,000 other links that google suggest have ronaldinho video are equally offending?

As for your hypothetical suggestion, I agree....

Jac

Lee

I am going to combine aqls's question with your comment above, so aqls, this is a reply to yours too.

In every system, in life or business, there are preconditions or predetermined rules set by the owner, creator, or administrator of a thing. This applies to every community service or facility you use in the course of a day. Much of it we will do subliminally because we are preconditioned (some might say brain-washed) to accept these things; like gearing back and stopping at a red light, or buying a pay 'n display parking ticket, or paying for the newspaper you purchase from the newsagent. These are all preconditions imposed on us by 'the system' and we (probably) don't complain because we have accepted these things as an integral part of the social fabric of our existence.

So why do people seem to find the concept of preconditions of use (regarding domain names) so unpalatable, when there are predetermined rules in everything we do? Someone somewhere has to set the ground rules, otherwise all you do is create an environment where every conceivable action can be contested or disputed. IMHO that's nothing less than chaos. This is why we have predetermined rules for drivers, pedestrians, parking, council tax, train fares (to name but a few). You don't get punished for breaking a rule, you get punished for being caught breaking it. Some people break the rules intentionally, some unintentionally; but the point is, these rules are predetermined and dictate the parameters within which we should all use a
particular system. We have a right not to like some of the rules but without them, there would be chaos; which is in nobody's interests.

By way of corroboration for the above-viewpoint, here's something topical to think about. I would point out (to everyone) that you are posting on a public forum that includes the following preconditions in its own "Terms and Conditions of use".

"You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned.

You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum
have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should
they see fit."

Acorn Domains even says: "We also adhere to Nominet Terms and Conditions".

Full details: Acorn Domains Forum Terms and Conditions of use:

Conclusion:
Someone somewhere has to predetermine the ground rules, just as they do in the mortgage or property businesses. So why should it be any different with domain names? And why do the predetermined rules for .uk domain names seem to create such offense on this forum?

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

olebean

Jac

Oh my gawd! You and I agree, rules are rules.

However what is apparently unfair, unequitable, biased, unrepresentative and even questionable on ethical and questioned on legal grounds should not be unquestioned both legally and morally.....

In my view, the likes of nominet, especially in the short term, would be better served collaborating with long term studies. Rather than relying on conducting and collecting questionaires and opinions.

Do they have the stomach for it?

As an insider, with a finger on some kind of pulse I am sure you would know....... No doubt there could be a fear of adding fuel to a fire!

sneezycheese

...I agree Jac, ground rules are a necessary evil in order to avoid chaos. I don’t think anyone here is saying there shouldn’t’ be rules, I think we’re saying we don’t like Nominets and we think they should be changed!

In addition, when ‘the rules’ are not adhered to within Nominet and as you say they get “caught”, there should be a mechanism that allows for proper review of the process and whether it has been adhered to correctly, not as it stands now a complaints procedure that basically just says “if you’ve got a complaint it’ll cost you £3,000 + VAT for it to be looked at”. (…I just had to get that one in. )

Finally, you mentioned Council Tax, an excellent example. It replaced the Poll Tax because the people revolted and protested of its unfairness (oh look a rule change). We now face a situation where Council Tax is shown not to be all that fair for Pensioners and thus people again are protesting for change and guess what, it may just happen and the rules will change again.

Conclusion

We live in a democracy which allows us to protest about things when we don’t like them! So that’s what we’re doing, so listen and learn!

Rules are never fixed in stone, they can be changed and are very often done so if required.
-------------------

I’m off down to my allotment now for some peace and quiet, a beer with the ‘ole boys’ and to plant some fruit and veg.

Have a nice Sunday, don’t get too stressed and enjoy the weather now that summer has finally arrived!

Sneezycheese.

grandin

I want to get out in the garden....but given I am posting on a sunday about a subject as unpopular as my dhalias (unpopular to the general public ie. no interest) then fundamental flaws must exist.....as sneezy has put it rules must be fair and morally correct....when you are told they are not they must be changed without delay...

I think IF ole had infrnged on an complainants rights then who says he should lose the domain name..........police provide cautions when things are so unclear.............the rules are unclear and the fact the experts get it wrong the first time but stay in there jobs doesnt really help make it fair.......domainers lose their domain names when they get it wrong!!!!!!!!!!!

Any way back to the garden...crappy dhalias indeed, lee

Jac

Then that's TWO things we agree on! Rules are rules and they should not be left unquestioned ... and the spooky thing is, they are not. They are continually questioned; but someone's gotta make 'em in the first place, before you can question 'em in the second.

I don't think fear of adding fuel to said fire is a worry. That's what Nominet members and PAB members are for; to continually question, and (in my opinion) to hold Nominet to account. Then again, stakeholders can hold Nominet to account through its Official Complaints procedure and just as Nominet quotes certain authorities you can complain about Members to, I would suggest you can use the same authorities if you are not happy with the responses you get from Nominet. Nominet has always promised openness and transparency in its policies and procedures. I (for one) believe you should keep your promises.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

Jac

Please see my reply to olebean which should clarify my standpoint on openness and transparency. In respect of your grievance about the 3k + Vat appeals fee; from a personal standpoint, I agree it can be prohibitive to fairplay in some instances. Even the Earl of Erroll, said (at the last PAB meeting) that he was 'keen to ensure there was no barrier to appeal against DRS decisions'. These things are being dicussed, but in a democracy, all viewpoints have to be considered. (It ain't as simple as JFDI.)

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

Jac

The same thing could be said about the courts! That's why judges allow for leave to appeal against a judgement they have just made; because they recognise their own fallibility. Courts get it wrong too; as is evidenced by some of the more infamous cases in the not so distant past; so if judges get it wrong the first time and stay in their jobs, does that make the court system wrong? I would suggest it doesn't; it just makes judges (and DRS experts) human. That's why we have appeals procedures in place; to allow the right to question the original decision.

What I personally believe we have to do is find a solution that allows the appellant in a DRS case to get his/her 3k back if they manage to win the appeal and overtturn the original decision (and lest we forget, you don't usually get your dosh back in court)!

As I said before it isn't as simple as just saying so. All opinions have to be taken into consideration, otherwise you end up with a minority dictating policy (and rules) to the majority, and that, in my opinion, would simply be another unlevel playing field (and anti-democratic).

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

Beasty

The difficulty with JAC's argument here is that the examples he cites are all government rule making bodies - either central (crimainal sanctions e.g. if you jump a red light or steal something) or local (e.g. parking fines). The one which isn't - train fares - is subject to competition - if you don't like the train fare then take the bus, drive etc.

Government is accountable DIRECTLY to the people. As an example, I live in an area where the Council introduced very unpopular parking rules - so they lost their majority at the recent elctions. The Council's executive leader and deputy both lost their seats and their jobs.

Nominet is a private company. It is not directly answerable to anyone other than it's members. The "people" (stakeholders if you like) have no right to have a say. I accept that PAB members like JAC and Hazel do seek out varied opinion - and are to be applauded for doing so. However there is no obligation on them to do so - and even when they do the PAB is not the decision making body at Nominet. Even the members are not invited to vote on the executives as far as I am aware. JAC will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they only have an active choice on some non-execs on the "board" and some directly elected members of the PAB.

What's more, the general "membership" could never get anything changed without the support of the "Big 3" who hold negative control due to the weighted voting system.

So - unlike the examples cited - Nominet is alone in setting rules that are not directly answerable to its constituancy/stakeholders. Likewise - uniquely for a private company - there is no alternative suppier available to provide consumers with the choice of voting with their feet.

For something that was of minimal interest (as it was in 1996) that's not a big deal. For something as cruicial as it is now in 2006 - it is a big deal. Nominet is a lot better than it could be - given its autonomy - and again we should be grateful to those with influence like JAC and Hazel for that. It seems to be a lot better than some of the executive want it to be - judging from the plans set out for the EGM. They have shown their hands.

Now is the time for Government to grasp the nettle - say thanks to those who have got things this far - and bring it under direct control as an executive arm of Government. While doing so it should include domains in the ongoing Gower review of IP law - and draft some direct legislation to cover domain names.