As we suspected Nominet ARE biased towards complainants!!

[domaingenius]

I quote from complaint received today;

"Ms xxx checked with the company which hosts the Complainant’s website who advised her to report the matter to Nominet. Ms xxxx telephoned Nominet who advised her not to buy the Domain Name"

Does that sound neutral and not an interference with my business ?. No of course not. THIS is the type of concern we all should have and this related also to my post on the NameDrive forum. Why all of a sudden is the simple parking of domains until used unlawful ,other than to ensure complainants succeed ?.

DG

 

[yesterday]

They should relinquish control of the dispute resolution service.

There is not even a pretence about independence or chinese walls.

yesterday

 

[retired_member6]

I quote from complaint received today;

"Ms xxx checked with the company which hosts the Complainant’s website who advised her to report the matter to Nominet. Ms xxxx telephoned Nominet who advised her not to buy the Domain Name"

Does that sound neutral and not an interference with my business ?. No of course not. THIS is the type of concern we all should have and this related also to my post on the NameDrive forum. Why all of a sudden is the simple parking of domains until used unlawful ,other than to ensure complainants succeed ?.

DG

There's a basic arguement you can use to defend parking, it doesn't take too much imagination, just say you're a developer and the domains are parked because as assets of your business they need to make their money back and more and what has it got to do with nominet and or the complainant as to what you do with your domains before development.

And as for the defence in selling a domain, that again is very simple, what right have nominet or the complainant got to justify who has which domain, I bought the domain to develop whether I develop the domain now or in ten years has very little to do with anybody other than myself.

If someone enquires about the domain and makes an offer or if I feel like trying to get offers in, then surely that's my right to offset future development and profit of would be website against income from a possible immediate sale and again complainant has no say in either of the above and nominet's policy which is rather confusing and contradictiory, isn't actually against the selling of domain names or parking or any such legal activity.

So Ms Four X 'ck off.

 

[olebean]

Do you sell the domain or selling the remaining period of the contract and any goodwill?

OB

 

[retired_member6]

Do you sell the domain or selling the remaining period of the contract and any goodwill?

OB

You're selling the domain, it's like property and land, you may own it, but you don't really, the government can take it off you whenever they want for a fee representative of the worth (their value) of the property at the time. As soon as nominet acknowledge domains are assets, which they bloody well are, the better.

Assets that don't depreciate much either. You could argue you're selling a contract, in which case, what's the difference? I don't actually know what the terms and conditions are with nominet in respect to buying a domain and what warnings there are on their product - I suppose i should do really.

 

[Michael Penman]

I quote from complaint received today;

"Ms xxx checked with the company which hosts the Complainant’s website who advised her to report the matter to Nominet. Ms xxxx telephoned Nominet who advised her not to buy the Domain Name"

Does that sound neutral and not an interference with my business ?

DG

Because complainants never make an error about what Nominet said, or even try it on, do they? So this must be totally true, and accurate, of course. (That was 'sarcasm'.)

Why on earth do you spend half your time whining about complainants apparently inventing things, until it suits you, when suddenly what they say is gospel truth?

I'm genuinely neutral these days. I don't think much of most of the useless carping on here, but on the other hand frell knows I don't have any great love for Nominet either. So I just call this as it is - your positions are just contradictory and illogical and depend on what suits your case best at any given time.

Sorry to have to point it out. It's just damned irritating.

 

[retired_member6]

Because complainants never make an error about what Nominet said, or even try it on, do they? So this must be totally true, and accurate, of course. (That was 'sarcasm'.)

Why on earth do you spend half your time whining about complainants apparently inventing things, until it suits you, when suddenly what they say is gospel truth?

I'm genuinely neutral these days. I don't think much of most of the useless carping on here, but on the other hand frell knows I don't have any great love for Nominet either. So I just call this as it is - your positions are just contradictory and illogical and depend on what suits your case best at any given time.

Sorry to have to point it out. It's just damned irritating.

Frell? you watch too much farscape.

 

[Michael Penman]

Frell? you watch too much farscape.

Frelling right I do, and it's driven me totally farbot.

 

[grandin]

Very good

I must say Michael you DRS mediation was outstanding and I told you so.

However, and a big however.....registrants do not know what you know...and what they think is what they think and if what they think is not what you think then it is you who has a problem not them...

the public are the public, knowledge is knowledge, teaching is teaching.....and customers are customers

repeat customers are customers....

Lee

 

[yesterday]

...your positions are just contradictory and illogical


Go on then! name a few that we can mull over!

(and clear up our arguments)

yesterday

 

[Beasty]

I must say Michael you DRS mediation was outstanding and I told you so.

I too am a big fan of the mediation stage of the DRS and believe it should be brought forward in the process.

However, one structural problem with the DRS as it stands within Nominet is to have the mediators engaging in the admin process. In my view that puts them in an unfair position and makes it very difficult for them to perform their role.

In other types of mediation, the mediator is seperate from the development of the case and only gets involved when the matter gets to mediation. I appreciate that a particular mediator may well not handle a specific file until the mediation stage in the DRS - but they are answering the phone/dealing with queries/sharing an office as the case progresses. The potential for overlap is too great.

If mediation is not handled by an external service and is to be kept in-house, then the DRS mediators need to be seperated from the day-to-day business of the Nominet legal department.

 

[Beasty]

I think I agree with that. I was surprised to find out that the mediators were employed by Nominet, not that long ago.

They are not only employed by Nominet, they often seem to be used as admin in the legal department and so field incoming calls about procedure and so on. I just don't think it is fair to put them in that position - where they may become involved in a dispute or the way that it was handled. They should be seperated from the process.

 

[olebean]

They are not only employed by Nominet, they often seem to be used as admin in the legal department and so field incoming calls about procedure and so on. I just don't think it is fair to put them in that position - where they may become involved in a dispute or the way that it was handled. They should be seperated from the process.

If by removing the DRS call centre mean those calls are answered by further nominet staff I'm unsure there would be improvement or not a conflict of interests...

If by removing the call centre you mean outsourcing then it would be interesting to see who would win the "arms-length" contract....