wb

I agree.

As far as I can see, the table shows people who have had three DRS cases against them and not those who have been found to be abusive three times? Surely if this is the case, anyone could file three DRS cases against someone and ask for a summary decision purely to get a respondent showing on the table. This makes the table seem a bit pointless?

Would be just as quick, if not quicker, to use the DRS respondent search feature than it would be to glance at a table.

(The points above don't impact me by the way, I just find the DRS process and reading of cases interesting.)

invincible

Sorry, I don't follow what you mean here. Taken from the page:

"Table of cases in which the respondent is or may be a party found to have made an Abusive Registration in 3 or more Dispute Resolution Service Cases"

and

"Disputes listed in the table below are included without any guarantee that similarly named parties are linked or that the listed cases occured within the last 2 years (see policy 3.c). These would be facts for an Independent Expert to decide in any new decision."

You said: "the table shows people who have had three DRS cases against them and not those who have been found to be abusive three times" - what's the difference? You followed that with "Surely if this is the case, anyone could file three DRS cases against someone and ask for a summary decision purely to get a respondent showing on the table." So I am deducing that you believe that anyone can file three DRS against someone else and easily obtain three summary decisions (which I assume you aren't counting as actual decisions where abuse has been found, given it's not a full decision), to get someone onto that score board? If so, you should refamiliarise yourself with the summary decision. An Expert will read the Complaint and the Complainant has to have Rights. If the Complainant doesn't have Rights then they won't get a summary decision in their favour. So you and I cannot just pick on someone who's away on holiday or in hospital, and obtain any three of their domain names for the cost of three summary decisions.

Not if Nominet haven't linked similarly named parties via that. I think they do this via the table.

invincible

I didn't say that. I said "I don't think many experts, writing a full decision for a fee of £750, will want to spend the time required to read through a list of several thousand Respondents to determine if a Respondent is a three strike contender. - I only used the word "Respondent" throughout. However I must correct myself over a different matter. There have been several thousand DRS cases, but not all of them have gone to a decision. Based on what you had said, and what I originally thought, an Expert would need to read through a list of several thousand Respondents to determine if a Respondent is a three strike contender (i.e. an Expert would need to go through the list of all DRS' and count each time the Respondent's name appeared next to a previous DRS decision found against them. Doing this would enable the Expert to establish whether the Respondent in the current DRS case would be considered to be a 3 strike candidate. Actually, the number of cases that the Expert would need to review would be far smaller because the Expert would only need to look through all of those that have gone to a decision and not every DRS, by far, has gone to a decision. Regardless, the table removes the need for any Expert to establish, by reviewing previous decisions, whether a Respondent is a three strike candidate or not because Nominet save them some of the donkey work.

(all of the above assumes they don't use the search feature)

Yes, in theory they could. However I don't think the search picks up those who are considered "related Respondents". Even if it did, and therefore returned everything in the table, that just makes the table a static copy of a search query. The table also existed for several years prior to Nominet introducing the DRS search facility to users of its web site so it may simply still exist because of this. It could possibly be integrated and therefore removed.

[snip]

anthony

I've just read through it. I suppose the niggling point for me is the "initial interest confusion" arguement. I can't help feeling that it is very difficult for the registrant to counter this without digging themselves into a hole, whether there is an actual abusive site or not. If they put a 'through link' on their site, they automatically hang themselves. In general terms though, registrants may now need to explicitly feature a non-related but justified web site relating to the name, or have no site whatsoever.

__________________
WEEKEND .org.uk Reduced to £2k for short period only, great affiliate opportunities.

wb

I read the "may be" as meaning not necessarily having three registrations which have been abusive, but more as a respondent having three DRS cases against them whether successful or not.

The difference is that just because someone has had three DRS cases against them, it doesn't mean they have been abusive three times. This was following on from Anthony's point about it looking like a name and shame table.

Just refreshed myself with the flowchart. I was assuming that a summary decision could be obtained whether a response is received or not, so that was incorrect on my part. It's late here.

However, I wasn't implying a DRS would actually be successful doing this, just that theoretically speaking three summary decision DRS' could be obtained against someone regardless of whether the complainant has rights (therefore getting the respondent published on the table).

invincible

I read the "may be" as a disclaimer for anyone interested (including any Complainant or an Expert) to ensure that they double check through the related decisions to find out for sure. I don't see how a Respondent can have three DRS cases against them, where some can be considered successful or unsuccessful. Three DRS cases against a Respondent is three DRS cases against a Respondent. They're all in effect unsuccessful outcomes for that Respondent. Some of them could be Summary Decisions and some could be Full Decisions but that doesn't matter. Both types of decision involve an Expert to some degree. It's just a Summary Decision isn't written up to the same extent as a Full Decision. An Expert still has to go through the process of reading the Complaint and making a judgement.

Point (5) of a Summary Decision found against a Respondent requires the Expert to select the box labelled "Yes" which is next to the sentence "The Complainant has, to my reasonable satisfaction, shown that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration".

No Respondent should appear on that page unless they have had three or more decisions (of either type) go against them within a two year time period.

A summary decision can only be obtained if a Respondent has not submitted a response. If a response has been received by Nominet, either the Complainant or the Respondent has to pay for a full decision if mediation fails and either party would like the DRS to be heard by an Expert

No, three summary decisions could not be obtained against someone if the Complaint(s) do not have Rights in relation to the domain names being disputed. The Expert involved with the summary decision has to tick "Yes" against the sentence (4) Rights - "The Complainant has, to my reasonable satisfaction, shown Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name."

mally

Imagine how much easier if it became 1st come 1st served, it's not hard or expensive to buy a domain name...

__________________
Crisis Loans residual income affiliate network review Lottery Syndicate Dream Meanings Price Comparison Fitness Magazines Charity Credit Cards

invincible

Imagine if what exactly became FCFS or are you being sarcastic?