Domain Manage

DRS default consultation

Discussion in 'Nominet General Information' started by retired_member11, Sep 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. retired_member11

    retired_member11 Retired Member

    Mar 2005
    Likes Received:
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Likes Received:
  3. fred United Kingdom

    fred Active Member

    Aug 2005
    Likes Received:
    Can I suggest that anyone replying to this include a reason why they agree/disagree.

    My response was basically that it is wrong for a complainant to be given the domain without them having to at least prove rights to it.
  4. olebean

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Nov 2005
    Likes Received:
  5. Whois-Search United Kingdom

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Dec 2004
    Likes Received:
    Reasons to be against DFT

    1. In the following cases there was "no response" yet there was still "no action" in the DRS case:

    DRS 04882

    DRS 04683

    DRS 04635

    DRS 04129

    DRS 03999

    DRS 03658

    DRS 03657

    Please explain why under a "default transfer process" should a complainant get the names above when they haven't "demonstrated that it has Rights in the name" or the respondent hasn't being using it abusively? Under the current system the registrant got to keep the name.

    2. Nominet suggest in the "majority of recent decisions (about 70%) have been "no response" cases".
    So does this mean a complainant now has a 70% chance of winning a DRS under the default transfer process?
    With such good odds the number of DRS cases will dramatically increase?
    Especially when it will only cost £10 to have a 'pop' at any high profile generic domain name.
    I have had already had 'domainers' ask me when is this coming in to effect so they can file a number of cases.

    3. It is not as simple as the respondent doesn't want to reply.
    If you look at those in the "3 cases respondent table" who are most likely not to reply:
    These are clever wealthy individuals who know how to defend themselves if necessary.
    They will respond and with some force if they feel the need to.
    For example: DRS 03676 Robert Morrison

    Maybe it is the case they do not want to get their comments Googled for all to see?
    Maybe their business model is to settle during mediation for £500?

    4. Minimum response

    There is no definition of a minimum response under the DRS.
    Therefore will we now see responses like "I disagree with everything in these allegations" or "no comment" or even "HAHA now you got to pay £750 instead of £200"?
    I believe the "default transfer process" will provoke people to reply like this and it will turn very ugly indeed.
    Someone could even setup with a email form template.

    5. It puts large domain portfolio owners at risk.

    If you are someone who has registered a large number of high value generic domain names in the past your names are under greater risk from this default transfer process. What happens if they start receiving high volumes of DRS letters constantly month after month because of the "default transfer process"?
    Nominet may want to make the DRS cheap for everyone however for those people their solicitors bills will go through the roof.
    Even I myself could have a go at "" for example in the hope the registrant wouldn't reply.

    Many of these registrants also tend to use PO Box's or Addresses abroad.
    The problems that can arise because of this were already highlighted in the Appeal:
    Are we now to suggest these types of names are to be default transferred because of the same reasons?

    Finally many of these people hold a lot of voting power within the Nominet membership.
    If they are upset by the "default transfer process" then they are likely to use that voting power.

    Already it is interesting that people who normally keep out of such debates have spoken on the issue. Edwin Hayward of with an address in Japan writes:

    "Usually I choose to stay out of the fray when it comes to Nominet policy changes, but this time is different
    The idea that an entity can pay 10 pounds to file a challenge and, should the owner of the domain they're challenging not respond within the very short delay allowed (overseas post alone can take 1 week+ each way!) then they win the right to take the domain for 200 pounds without even having the actual substance of the complaint considered is on the face of it palpably ridiculous, yet having re-read the DRS consultation document several times it still stubbornly seems to say exactly that".

    6. Inconsistent transfers.

    I feel the "default transfer process" will put Nominet in a difficult position legally.

    With clear typosquatting or cybersquatting domain names like DRS 04630 Nominet could transfer the domain names without any hassle.

    However what happens when someone gets a default transfer on a high profile company domain like (someone far bigger than Nominet loses a name)
    or a high value generic domain name like Will Nominet carry out the default transfer policy then?

    7. Where is the money going?

    In a DRS case the expert gets £750 for spending a few hours of their time reviewing and writing the response.
    Under a "default transfer" the expert wouldn't see the case at all and the money (£200) will go directly to Nominet.

    Nominet say "Money raised through the upfront fee and the default transfer will be put towards development of the DRS service, for example by contributing to the increased cost of the Expert Review Group".

    So are experts on the "Expert Review Group" to be paid by Nominet for their time? OR are they only allowed to claim expenses (like the PAB)?

    8. Cybersquatter v Cybersquatter DRS

    Let's say cybersquatter A has a high value PPC traffic trademarked domain registered to a PO Box/overseas Address.

    Another Cybersquatter B then decides he wants trademaked domain and files a DRS from his PO Box/overseas address.

    Cybersquatter A doesn't responsed because his address is fake/never checked and Cybersquatter B gets high value PPC name for £200.
  6. Rob_F United Kingdom

    Rob_F Well-Known Member

    Apr 2007
    Likes Received:
    Under the current DRS complainants have to prove their case, finding someone "guilty" by default and awarding a name to a complainant, however ridiculous or frivolous that complaint may be would be a massive mistake (to put it politely).

    Savvy domain investors and companies will exploit this system for all it’s worth.

    Finally, if you do decide to implement this, may I suggest that the £200 raised be not put towards further dismantlement of the DRS service, but donated to a good cause such as the RSPCA or similar.

    - Rob
  7. Edwin

    Edwin Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Apr 2005
    Likes Received:
    Just to be clear, it's not just that my address is in Japan, I live in Japan! And there are plenty of people in the namespace (it's available globally, after all) who live outside the UK (rather than just using handy overseas PO boxes).

    An aside, but a relevant one: I can't tell you the number of letters that get to me a month late because some idiot employee in the UK doesn't realise that a 2nd class stamp (or even a 1st class one) means nothing at all outside the UK (or the EU, in the case of 1st class stamps). I guess it's just the generosity of the Japanese postal service that means I get them at all. And don't get me started about the phonecalls at 1am because people just don't "get" timezones. So I can see that the idea that "the post takes a LONG time once you're talking about mailing the other side of the world" may be hard for some folks to absorb!
  8. Whois-Search United Kingdom

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Dec 2004
    Likes Received:
    Also Nominet now say:

    "we intend to ensure that there are additional safeguards for registrants against speculative or opportunistic complaints"

    So Nominet will now get involved in whether a DRS complaint should go ahead? Will they now only allow large brands through the DRS or can anyone have rights to any name?

    If I went for and

    Which would be "opportunistic"?
  9. rob

    rob Founding Member

    Jan 2005
    Likes Received:
    On one you would get a polite yet firm 'feck off' :)

  10. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    May 2006
    Likes Received:
    whole point

    Nominet should take on board the rileys decision i.e. Mr Willoughby made a point re fame and fortune of a complainant therefore I suggest that the default transfer is limited to Trade Mark holders who have a UK Trade Mark....or at the very least a pilot on this basis

    lets face it the default transfer was only designed to transfer dodgy names quickly thus limiting Nominet's exposure in the courts for not pre vetting such opinion only of course

  11. Beasty

    Beasty Active Member

    Jan 2006
    Likes Received:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page