Can a DRS consultation reply be used against you?

[Whois-SearchWhois-Search is verified member.]

When you make a reply to the DRS consultation, your comment gets listed on the bottom of the page:

Updating the .uk Dispute Resolution Service

Google then picks up the pdf. Example:

chris holland drs - Google Search

Can your comments in that then be used in a future DRS as evidance of abuse?

Also if I replied to the DRS consultation say in favour of domainers and then I stood for the PAB in March..... someone would just quote me on nom-steer.

Should these comments remain private? Or do you just have to watch what you say and take the risk.

 

[robrob is verified member.]

CH's reply is a gem

To balance the situation where a three time losing respondent has the automatic assumption of bad faith presumed against him (or "her" if it is one of these new phantom tags in the names of existing tagholder's girlfriends, wives, cats and landladies etc), we would like for a penalty to be imposed on a sliding scale pro rata to the predatory complainant's annual published turnover if a finding of "attempted reverse domain name hijacking" is determined by the expert. So if a £5bn annual turnover FSTE 100 member attempts to steal my trainers.co.uk domain on the basis of an expired Ecuadorian trademark and is found to have tried to reverse domain name hijack my valuable property, they should pay a penalty of £5,000 or £10,000. This payment should be made directly to the winning respondent.

 

[domaingenius]

When you make a reply to the DRS consultation, your comment gets listed on the bottom of the page:

Updating the .uk Dispute Resolution Service

Google then picks up the pdf. Example:

chris holland drs - Google Search

Can your comments in that then be used in a future DRS as evidance of abuse?

Also if I replied to the DRS consultation say in favour of domainers and then I stood for the PAB in March..... someone would just quote me on nom-steer.

Should these comments remain private? Or do you just have to watch what you say and take the risk.

Is there any warning that such responses will be published on the Nominet website ???. If not then I think that the Information Commissioner may well be looking at the website. It is *perhaps* OK if they advise you before hand, but I think that Nominet have a cheek to publish such comments and what really is the purpose of putting them on the website .

DG

 

[grandin]

DRS views

DG I think you are being paranoid. The Consultation is open to anyone to give views on how to construct a workable DRS.

You have to follow rules under the contract, views do not constitute a breach of rules.

I would be more concerned with any views posted under Acorn.

I have written a part 1 of a 2 part but I have left it at home today. I will file it tomorrow.

Lee

 

[Beasty]

DG I think you are being paranoid. The Consultation is open to anyone to give views on how to construct a workable DRS.

You have to follow rules under the contract, views do not constitute a breach of rules.

I would be more concerned with any views posted under Acorn.

I have written a part 1 of a 2 part but I have left it at home today. I will file it tomorrow.

Lee

I agree with Lee. I am sure if you want your opinions kept confidential, Nominet would do it. However in general I think giving everyone an idea of the type and numbers of responses is a good thing - so everyone can see the actual opinions expressed, as well as any analysis done on them.

 

[grandin]

Ashes

Ashes?

Are you back home beasty?

Lee

 

[Beasty]

Ashes?

Are you back home beasty?

Lee

No - I'm a sucker for punishment!

 

[olebean]

No - I'm a sucker for punishment!

The Aussies people that bad (or good depending on the disposition to punshment)


OB