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

PAB Sub-Committee feedback on the review of DRS

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by Whois-Search, Jan 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Whois-Search

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,967
    Likes Received:
    149
    Here is the PAB Sub-Committee feedback to the DRS review:

    http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/10712_PAB_DRS_SubCommittee_recommendations.pdf

    Found on: Next Meeting

    Interesting "other issues" section:

    Also remember who the chair is: Ramage Associates
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

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

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    more dribble

    'DRS is not intended to provide a forum for complaints against Nominet (which might be a reason to separate DRS from Nominet), but provides a forum whereby parties who dispute rights to a name can seek resolution by independent third parties as an alternative to litigation. '

    I was going to ask Nominet for a DRS mission statement but it seems that the Trade Mark Attorney has said it in one.....

    We as reigstrants pay for the structure that allows so called 'rights holders' to get hold of our domain names.

    Lee
     
  4. Whois-Search

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,967
    Likes Received:
    149
    This is also an interesting statement:

    So I have to have a reason to register a lot of names?
     
  5. Brassneck United Kingdom

    Brassneck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    3,092
    Likes Received:
    31
    This bit worries me too. I don't know if it is badly phrased, but does it mean a lot of names generally or a lot of names that could be regarded as being in bad faith etc.. If not the latter then presumably anybody involved in buying or selling domains, or acquiring domains for parking could be guilty.

    Stephen.
     
  6. Whois-Search

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,967
    Likes Received:
    149
  7. aqls

    aqls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    1,042
    Likes Received:
    26
    what is "a lot" of names.

    in proportion to their voting rights?

    It reads to me that they think parking is abuse.

    Not good reasons include:
    to make money
    to try to make money
    to sell anyone elses goods or products
    as an investment
    to offer targeted advertising
    to sell on

    good reasons:
    to match your offline activities.

    so much for progress.

    -aqls-
     
  8. rob

    rob Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2005
    Posts:
    5,966
    Likes Received:
    119
    Is "to make money" a clear reason?

    As that seems to be the main reason for parking.
     
  9. Beasty

    Beasty Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    595
    Likes Received:
    8
    It's only paranoia if they are not out to get you - "sophisticated cybersquatting" was how a current expert described PPC at a public meeting.
     
  10. rob

    rob Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2005
    Posts:
    5,966
    Likes Received:
    119
    As long as said experts know what cybersquatting means thats fine.

    Definition: a person who buys one or more commercially viable domain names for the purpose of reselling for a profit

    nowt wrong with that is there?
     
  11. olebean United Kingdom

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    29
    The academic definition mentions purpose of reselling to the trademark holder....

    The so called expert has no basis for such a statement
     
  12. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    two important quotes

    These are two important expert drs quotes which clearly show that buying a generic domain name gives you a right to sell it for profit....no reason exists why your right of use would be limited to just selling thus to use your domain name for ppc must be legitimate use (based on experts) as long as the use isn't abusive to the complainants rights......my problem (as explained under my second drs consultation reply) is that Nominet has given way too much power to the experts who are technically only administrators of a policy not judges

    'Respondent registered the Domain Name with the primary intention of selling it at a profit to “an entity to whom the Domain Name would be of relevance for a price in excess of his out-of-pocket expenses……The Panel rejects that argument. That is tantamount to saying that trading in domain names at a profit is an objectionable practice per se. For a domain name to constitute an Abusive Registration under the DRS Policy on the basis of the Respondent’s abusive intent at time of registration, the Respondent must at the very least have been aware at the time of the existence of the Complainant’s Rights. That is not this case.'

    and

    'It is not abusive to sell generic domain names. '

    Lee
     
  13. Nigel

    Nigel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2005
    Posts:
    4,752
    Likes Received:
    120
    This is also an interesting statement:

    Quote:
    We believe that isolated offers to sell a domain, or “pay per click” activity are not of themselves evidence of abuse but done “in bulk”, can be such evidence. We feel that registering many domains, taken in context with other factors can be evidence of abuse. Indeed, it may be that registration of a number of domains without a clear reason why this has been done is evidence of abuse.

    So I have to have a reason to register a lot of names?
    __________________
    Whois Search - Domain name whois

    Certainly is an 'interesting statement' in fact it is quite astounding and shows just how stuck in the past are those presiding over DRS policy. Quite why pay-per-click is frowned upon beats me. A pay-per-click site is simply a mini website that shares its hosting with the provider. It provides relevant and useful searches - that is why many of our domains achieve click through rates of around 40%. So nearly half the visitors have found an ad that suits their need. Which is not surprising when you see the quality of the advertisers appearing on some of the sites. Do these DRS experts also believe that the following list of companies/corporations/government bodies should be frowned upon for lowering themselves enough to appear on a generic relevant domain name:

    Just a few of those recently advertising on some of our domains:

    The Open University
    Direct.gov.uk (yes - the Government)
    Price Waterhouse Cooper
    British Telecom
    The Daily Telegraph
    The Times
    Tesco
    Scottish Power
    Legal and General
    Alliance and Leicester
    MBNA
    Axa
    Northern Rock
    The AA
    First Choice Holidays

    I gleaned this list in a few minutes and they are a tiny percentage of companies, corporations, charities, and government bodies that see the huge benefit of paying per click to increase their profile in the business world. One further point - very many established websites are simply glorified pay-per-click facilities or simply link to the real provider via an affiliate code.
     
  14. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    who is abusive

    who derives the most from ppc.......google???

    Lee
     
  15. aqls

    aqls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    1,042
    Likes Received:
    26
    And the domain registrars.

    Past abuse is not a guarantee of the future!

    Though it is mosttimes indirect, they have been selling domains with this useage in mind for over 10 years now.

    -aqls-
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2007
  16. weycresto

    weycresto Active Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    104
    Likes Received:
    2
    That statement about registering domains in "bulk" might be evidence of "abuse"
    is very nieve or badly worded. It makes me wonder who is on the subcommittee - the Nominet office cat?

    They seem to be sending a signal not to build traffic aggregation or PPC networks using UK registered domain names, because they don't understand the business model. Of course its highly likely to result in bulk domain registration!

    In the process I hope they consult with Google etc who may be able to enlighten them a little, after all it was the search engines, combined with
    throwaway domain prices that made the PPC/domaining business viable.
     
  17. Whois-Search

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,967
    Likes Received:
    149
    From the Jan PAB report:

    http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/11741_Jan_2007_PAB_report.pdf
     
  18. olebean United Kingdom

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    29
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.