I want to recoup my legal bills against complainants that do not pay for an Expert decision. The barrier to bring complaints are very weak. IMO all complaints lodged should be with legal counsel. The half baked complaints I see have no abusive element to them.
Membership is FREE – with unlimited access to all features, tools, and discussions. Premium accounts get benefits like banner ads and newsletter exposure. ✅ Signature links are now free for all. Share your own thoughts and experience, accounts may be terminated for violations.
-
Welcome to AcornDomains.co.uk, a friendly community for UK domain investors, developers and anyone interested in domain names.
Whether you're looking to buy or sell domains, learn more about the UK domain market, get feedback on your names, or simply chat with other domainers, you're in the right place. AcornDomains has been bringing together people from across the UK domain industry for many years, from complete beginners to experienced investors.
Have a look around, join the discussions and, if you haven't already, create a free account and introduce yourself.
And so it begins....
- Thread starter foz
- Start date
- Status
I want to recoup my legal bills against complainants that do not pay for an Expert decision. The barrier to bring complaints are very weak. IMO all complaints lodged should be with legal counsel. The half baked complaints I see have no abusive element to them.
Wish to do it after the fact.
The process is flawed with the DRS.
Everyone submits their arguments, then and only then does the complainant decide to pay or not.
If the complainant walks, time and money has gone up in smoke.
To bring proceedings to recoup £1,500 would be overkill.
Anyone been down this path:
https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview
I brought these issues up in my response to the DRS consultation months ago. With .uk this is only going to get much worse and requires immediate attention by Nominet to review the situation.
Nothing was/is done in the case of bringing spurious / malicious DRS against a domain. My argument was that there should be a pre-acceptance vetting in each case. Simply filling in a form and paying £10 is NOT acceptable considering the legal / time costs in further action along the drs route.
Their argument is that mediation can remove the need for an expert decision, but the cost to the respondant is before this, not after, unless an appeal is required.
In fact they made it easier in some respects with the £200 no response clauses. This imo should be the initial outlay for a drs at which point the case may be accepted or dismissed - before the respondant is even involved. The case of the complainant should be set out at this point.
Having being at the wrong end of a spurious claim I know what it cost me to defend it - even though I did it myself - in lost clients and time.. £x,xxx.
The current DRS is again not fit for purpose in the current - as Nominet put it - changing domain market.
S
Nothing was/is done in the case of bringing spurious / malicious DRS against a domain. My argument was that there should be a pre-acceptance vetting in each case. Simply filling in a form and paying £10 is NOT acceptable considering the legal / time costs in further action along the drs route.
Their argument is that mediation can remove the need for an expert decision, but the cost to the respondant is before this, not after, unless an appeal is required.
In fact they made it easier in some respects with the £200 no response clauses. This imo should be the initial outlay for a drs at which point the case may be accepted or dismissed - before the respondant is even involved. The case of the complainant should be set out at this point.
Having being at the wrong end of a spurious claim I know what it cost me to defend it - even though I did it myself - in lost clients and time.. £x,xxx.
The current DRS is again not fit for purpose in the current - as Nominet put it - changing domain market.
S
Didn't spot the consult. For sure .uk is here and this is the worst I've seen in all my years.
No £10, it's FREE!
Mediation. Someone that has offered £50 (prior to complaint) all of a sudden in mediation they will pay aftermarket value price plus legal fees. NO CHANCE. They had no intention of paying £750 for the Expert all along.
The expert fee should be paid upfront with the complaint. That will rid us of the try-it-on brigade.
I can see both sides of this argument, yes the professional domainer should have slush fund for fighting legal cases, however, perhaps there should be an option to file a summary response for mediation and then a full detailed response should it go to the expert so there's no need to engage a lawyer until necessary. This way, you don't waste cash and time on lawyers for those who are just trying it on, but you still have the option to engage assistance if it is a "proper" DRS case.
I'm not saying that the expert fee should be paid up front, the steps from respondent's reply to expert decision are imo right.
But Nominet should expect a significant increase in DRS cases due to .uk and that the current procedure is now not fit for purpose. Nothing to do with domain investment etc, this is for all current registrants... we don't want / need another cheese domain fiasco.
The initial steps to post a DRS need immediate review. Many DRS's since the consultation are done so through the £200 summary decision pathway, or at least in the hope of this.
I would like to see an enhancement of the submit -> accept/not accept to include a basic submission review process - which may have an initial cost - to not just test the semantics of the submission but basic case validity.
But Nominet should expect a significant increase in DRS cases due to .uk and that the current procedure is now not fit for purpose. Nothing to do with domain investment etc, this is for all current registrants... we don't want / need another cheese domain fiasco.
The initial steps to post a DRS need immediate review. Many DRS's since the consultation are done so through the £200 summary decision pathway, or at least in the hope of this.
I would like to see an enhancement of the submit -> accept/not accept to include a basic submission review process - which may have an initial cost - to not just test the semantics of the submission but basic case validity.
The why & when of these being sent out is imo the issue:
You're right, that experts cost money. But a DRS review panel, in the same mould as the old PAB may be a possibility.
Righteous indignation should never be a reason to register a DRS.
If anything the complaint submission process should explicitly contain clauses for the complainant to state and disclose if any contact with the registrant (personal or company) has been made. Failure to do so would invalidate the complaint.
That this letter appears to be sent AT the expert stage is a bit anachronistic imo.
You're right, that experts cost money. But a DRS review panel, in the same mould as the old PAB may be a possibility.
Righteous indignation should never be a reason to register a DRS.
If anything the complaint submission process should explicitly contain clauses for the complainant to state and disclose if any contact with the registrant (personal or company) has been made. Failure to do so would invalidate the complaint.
That this letter appears to be sent AT the expert stage is a bit anachronistic imo.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Posts
- 4,660
- Reaction score
- 184
The last one I had was pretty much one paragraph which basically said 'I need this domain to expand my business' !!!
The complainant got a response from Nominet as above regarding the crapness of their complaint which referenced a previous DRS case that had been dismissed due to the lack of information/evidence from the complainant (it was slightly more detailed than mine).
I just referenced the above case in my short response and stated that if that case was dismissed I don't see how this one couldn't be!
Could have been a risk on my part but the fee wasn't paid and it went no further. Could be a handy one to reference in responses in these sorts of cases though: D00004635
Grant
The complainant got a response from Nominet as above regarding the crapness of their complaint which referenced a previous DRS case that had been dismissed due to the lack of information/evidence from the complainant (it was slightly more detailed than mine).
I just referenced the above case in my short response and stated that if that case was dismissed I don't see how this one couldn't be!
Could have been a risk on my part but the fee wasn't paid and it went no further. Could be a handy one to reference in responses in these sorts of cases though: D00004635
Grant
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2013
- Posts
- 80
- Reaction score
- 4
- Status
