Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.

Drs

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by texidriver, Jun 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. grantw United Kingdom

    grantw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    4,694
    Likes Received:
    93
    Yes :)

    In 1996 we all started at the same equal point but things have clearly evolved since then. It is obvious that due to their uniqueness and short supply domain names can command a very high value. I'm guessing that 99% of these people are not happy because someone else got that £10k domain for a fiver instead of them.

    Everyone has equal access to Nominets systems if they are willing to pay for it and everyone has equal access to learn a programming language or to pay someone else to create a script to catch domains.

    As for your Wild West Analogy, I suggest that the person who greased his wheels quite rightly deserved to get the best land. He may then research and discover an even better kind of grease and use that on his wagon to go after some more land..................... 10 years later he is a property tycoon and the people complaining are still riding around in their old horses and carts chuntering to themselves :)

    Grant
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
    IWA Meetup
     
  3. tifosi United Kingdom

    tifosi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    55
    Oh, that's terrible! Ok, to use the same analogy. It was well known also that some prospectors scouted out the best bits of land. Some used wagons - with or without greased axles! Some used thoroughbred horses to get to their plots.

    All being equal, the best equiped got there first. As the saying goes, 'everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others'

    S
     
  4. tmsdomreg

    tmsdomreg Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    2
    Equality of Opportunity

    I think the point that is easily overlooked is that the vast majority of would-be Registrants - a) don't have the technical ability to work on domain lists and scripts - and b) are probably not even aware of their existence...

    They are too busy being experts in their own field of industry.

    All they know, in a sense, is that names are available on a FCFS basis (the fact that the decent ones have mostly all gone doesn't come into it) and that when they *are* available, you can "buy" them for next to nothing or get them as a free loss-leader (so that *really* makes them valuable doesn't it!).

    So when they see the name they want is up for sale by Merlin The Wizard Of Domain Black Arts who is asking £ 250 for it, he immediately thinks rip-off. (And goodness knows what he thinks when we get into 4-figures!).

    And that's why Domainers have currently got an uphill PR job to do to educate the average Joe (as well as many IT "experts") that they are legitimate business people in a legitimate market offering a valuable service.

    Peter
     
  5. grantw United Kingdom

    grantw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    4,694
    Likes Received:
    93
    Indeed, I recall seeing a thread on a forum a couple of years ago regarding a .com domain - the chap who missed it was thanking the lord that buydomains.com caught it meaning that he was able to purchase it from them for a 4 figure sum rather than it going to a competitor or someone else unwilling to sell it. An attitude I would like to see the .uk user registrant adopting :)

    Grant
     
  6. tifosi United Kingdom

    tifosi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    55
    I agree. The attitude that domains are business assets is one that needs to be fostered.

    S
     
  7. tmsdomreg

    tmsdomreg Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    2
    Absolutely. And perhaps Nominet should have a section on their website explaining there is often a scarcity of good appropriate names left in the public domain and giving some practical advice on to how to go about choosing alternatives should this be the case.

    Dare I say it - even referring to alternative sources of supply if there is nothing available on a FCFS basis. ;) - at the end of the day it's all promoting .UK

    Peter
     
  8. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    Yes, you are right; things have evolved, and it might be argued that domain name speculators simply saw an opportunity to capitalise and grabbed it... and why shouldn't they. They were able to do this because there was no restriction on their use of the First Come First Served rule.

    However, even when there were restrictions (as in the me.uk rules) the system was abused beyond what .me.uk was created to achieve. The .me.uk domain was intended for "personal use" but because the rules were riddled with loopholes, the domain immediately saw thousands of registrations relating to colloquiallisms and (what the more religious in our communities might regard as) vulgar and offensive terms.

    Nominet's webpage still states: "Domain Name registrations made under .me.uk are expected to be made for natural persons, such as Mr John Doe registering johndoe.me.uk".

    This is not what .me.uk ended up as, and this from a domain that was supposed to be for "personal use". I'd laugh (ho ho ho) but it's actually more serious than that. It goes to the kind of 'evolved' things you cite. In its attempt to create a personal domain for use by natural persons, Nominet created a monster and the monster bit back. Similarly, in its attempts to allow fairplay and equality Nominet created a 'First Come First Served' policy that is neither regulated or restrictive.

    With specific regard to Rule 7.1 and 7.2 of the .co.uk Rules, there is a distinct lack of guidance or suggestion except to say that .co.uk registrations should be used for commercial purposes. Nowhere in the Rules, will you find any reference to the acceptability of who registers and for what purpose. You might argue that this gives one the right to register hundreds or thousands of domains, but the counter-argument is that Nominet should have protected everyone's interests more equally and profoundly than the lack of protection within its Rules now dictates (and what's the point of calling a thing a rule if it doesn't).

    These are both valid arguments (and I am piggy in the middle).

    In any other business arena I would totally agree with you about the right to speculate, but the overriding principle of the internet is that it was founded by people, most of them unknown, who contributed essential ingredients - free and unselfishly - so the worldwide community could benefit from their efforts. When the acknowledged father of the internet - Tim Berners Lee - finished writing the tools that defined the Web's basic structure, he is reputed to have given them away, no strings attached. Such was the commitment to equality and community that the founders of the Internet displayed and such was the spirit of the internet in them thar days.

    But you're right, things have evolved.

    Now we regard the internet as a means to an end and a resource that it's actually okay to plunder and sod equality or community.... which kind of conflicts with Nominet's notion of acting in the interests of the wider stakeholder communities (albeit that they have now rewritten this to "respond to the needs of our customers and stakeholders").

    The Adult Industry learned early on that they could grow their industry faster on the internet without (in them days) much fear of legal action; or of even being tracked down; and they eventually hijacked a 30/35% share of it.

    Now, more has been hijacked by PPC sites. Whilst one side will argue that these sites are of significant value to the wider stakeholder communities, the stakeholder communities will argue they are of no benefit at all... except to the PPC owners, their associates, and affiliates. The most commonly held view I hear is this; "if I want to search for something I'll go to Google or Yahoo! I don't want to be misled."

    As I said above, they are both valid arguments, but this is the stuff that PAB consultations are made of because the PAB was created to represent the wider stakeholder communities. That; in my humble opinion; is what they have to do.

    Regards
    James Conaghan
     
  9. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    Hey! Don't shoot the messenger just cuz you don't like the message. :cool:

    I keep seeing posts on this board about "fair" and "unfair" stuff so I was assuming everybody accepted that the domain name system should be "fair".

    The stumbling block to that concept of course is subjectivity. It's hard to be fair when you're not prepared to be objective. ;)

    Regards
    James Conaghan
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2006
  10. grantw United Kingdom

    grantw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    4,694
    Likes Received:
    93
    First come first served and everyone has equal access to Nominets systems if they want it, it is up to them how involved they want to get with it - this seems pretty fair to me???


    Grant
     
  11. tmsdomreg

    tmsdomreg Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    123
    Likes Received:
    2
    As I understand it Nominet reserve the right now to refuse renewal of any .me names that infringe the revised registration policies. Do you know if this is being actively pursued?

    Peter
     
  12. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    Well that's one way of looking at it. If you want another view on what the EURid arbitrar thinks is "fair" take a look here. The last few paragraphs are the crux of the article.

    The point being, I bet the organisation losing the domain name didn't think it was "fair" but I'll also bet the organisation receiving it, did. So how do we judge what's fair and who actually makes that judgement? Surely only the registry (from whence all domain names spring) can make that call?

    Regards
    James Conaghan
     
  13. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    The quick answer is no, Nominet don't refuse renewal requests. The
    policy said that domain names registered before October 2004 would not be
    subject to the rule change unless transferred or cancelled.

    That said, I am told that Nominet is investigating what, if anything, needs to be put in place for this November (when the first post October 2004 registrations are up for renewal) and I'll let you know when I know.

    Regards
    James Conaghan
     
  14. tifosi United Kingdom

    tifosi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    55
    I think they missed their opportunity when the large batch of .me.uk dropped in april. I seem to remember a free for all then.

    S
     
  15. texidriver United States

    texidriver Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    488
    Likes Received:
    13

    www.farming.me.uk

    http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/4053_farming.pdf

    "The Expert directs that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

    Farming Online Limited"

    Registrant type:
    UK Limited Company, (Company number: xxx)

    9.4.1. Where, as the result of the DRS or judicial proceedings (of relevant jurisdiction) a .me.uk domain name is to be transferred to a person who would not qualify under Rule 9.2 (the “transferee”), the transfer to, and continued registration by, the transferee shall be permitted provided that no use is made of that .me.uk domain name for any purpose, for so long as the transferee holds the domain name.

    BTW I am not an expert.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2006
  16. tifosi United Kingdom

    tifosi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    55
    A quick look at the synopsis however indicates some contractual issues between the 2 parties. Although .me.uk are 'supposed' to be for personal uses, no parent in their right mind will name their child farming. So the use would be for a party with a close relationship to the generic meaning of the name.

    That they've been 'given' the name but can't use it is strange, but a result with a bit of a twist. Someones got a sick sense of humour.

    S
     
  17. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    I may be wrong but I think the point texidriver was making is that www.farming.me.uk is being used which seems to contradict the "Specific Rules for the .me.uk SLD" Clauses 9.4.1 to 9.4.3 inclusive.

    As I said previously, the abuse of .me.uk leaves me cold. The whole rule set was (IMHO) haphazardly written and if it is was at all practical, I'd be petitioning Nominet to close it down and start again with more precise rules... but then you would disadvantage all legitimate users too.

    Catch22.

    Regards
    James Conaghan
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.