Change of status for the domain name 3.org.uk

[atlas]

The domain name 3.org.uk was registered at the end of the Registered Rights Sunrise phase. Following registration, an objection was raised concerning the IP rights provided by the applicant for that domain. This objection has been upheld by CMS, our IP validation rights agency and the domain name has now been made available for registration during the Unregistered Rights Sunrise phase.

As this domain originally appeared to be unavailable at the start of the current Sunrise phase, we want to ensure that all interested parties are aware that it is now available.

from: http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest?contentId=8238

 

[anthony]

What exactly was the objection though?

 

[jwm]

It would have been interesting if 3.co.uk had made it to auction because "Three" would definitely not have wanted any other party to obtain it. I cannot imagine another party being able to outbid them either so I question why anyone else, other than them, would bother to apply for 3.co.uk in the first place (because there was slim to no chance of "Three" not realising that the domain name was going to be made available).

Because 3 might have just paid you to go away rather than let you ramp the sales price on them during an auction? Or perhaps another mobile operator would have been interested in acquiring your rights to the auction.

All speculation on my part obviously

 

[wb]

I cannot imagine another party being able to outbid them either so I question why anyone else, other than them, would bother to apply for 3.co.uk in the first place (because there was slim to no chance of "Three" not realising that the domain name was going to be made available).

Scott has a lot of domains worth serious money, and Three wouldn't know what he was prepared to bid up to. If it was going to auction perhaps Three would have wanted to offer Scott an amount instead to guarantee they won it and potentially save themselves money in the process. It makes commercial sense but we will never know now though.

Edit: Beaten to it by jwm

 

[doodlebug]

Putting the mobile network aside, I would imagine that 3.co.uk would be worth 100k anyway and 3.org.uk about 10k to 20k

I don't undertand Nominet doing auctions if they're suppose be a non for profit organisation,I would say xx,xxx for a domain which even at standard Nominet rates would only cost £80 + vat,that is a serious profit :shock:

 

[wb]

I wondered about the pay off idea but if they could pay off their opponent, why wouldn't they just decide to bid the same amount and win the auction?

An auction leaves uncertainty regarding how much the other party is prepared to pay. If I was in the auction, I would want them to make me an offer for a 'pay off' rather than telling them how much I would be prepared to bid. For that reason, it's not possible for them to just bid 'the same amount' to win the auction as they wouldn't know how much I would bid up to. They may be prepared to pay up to £100k at auction considering that is what they allegedly paid for 'three.co.uk', so a pay off could cost them considerably less for a guaranteed win.

Having domain names that are potentially worth "serious money" doesn't necessarily translate to having cash in the bank and therefore the ability to bid on a domain name that has a single suitor. That suitor was also the only other participant in the auction. I don't know what form the auctions take. Are they sealed bids or are they conventional auctions? Do you have to provide proof of funds before you can bid?

Regardless of cash in the bank, it would probably give the impression to the other bidder that he is a serious buyer.

Good point about the auction format though, it's something which I haven't looked into.

 

[wb]

A shame for Scott, but by any means it has to be said that it was a very clever move by Palmerston to secure '3'. The registered trademark was for '3' without any additional words so it's a shame for Scott, but will be interesting to find out what they did exactly to prove the application was invalid.

 

[anthony]

Nominets' Terms & Conditions expressly state that: "..we cannot investigate what rights you have to register or use the domain name.."

 

[doodlebug]

Surely they can pick a company out of just 2 based on merit and IPO rights.

And as for 3.co.uk being worthless to anyone other than the mobile network then that's silly, any 2 character .co.uk would go for 10k+ so a single one would definitely go for a nice amount, what do think would happen if eg 5.co.uk was offered on here ?

 

[anthony]

...The standard T&Cs aren't the rules of the two and one character release sunrise. The sunrise is based on trademark rights and there is a criteria for what is considered valid and invalid.

Sorry, but Sunrise domain names will all be registered to the same set of T&Cs as every other domain name managed by Nominet, so I stand by the fact that Nominet retain no powers to investigate rights. On re-reading the processes involved, this seems to be clear by the facts that:

1- The 'rights' are being determined externally by CMS Cameron McKenna.
2- The auctions will being managed externally by NFPA.
3- All profits will go to the Nominet Trust.

Are you suggesting that Nominet do retain a power to investigate rights, or maybe that their T&Cs do not apply here?

 

[anthony]

That's once the domain name has actually been registered.

That's a matter of interpretation, my understanding of the English language suggests it should apply to before registration simply because the T&Cs read "..rights you have to register.." rather than "..rights you had to register..". It's how the T&C's are read I suppose, but I can't envisage Nominet having no rights to investigate only after registration. It's like saying they could have rights beforehand, but accepting the T&Cs cancels that right!

Are you able to quote anything from within this particular thread where you feel I might have suggested that "Nominet do retain a power to investigate rights,

No, that's why it was asked as a question, you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, so was picking your brains.

..or maybe their T&Cs do not apply here"?

QUOTE- "The standard T&Cs aren't the rules of the two and one character release sunrise. The sunrise is based on trademark rights and there is a criteria for what is considered valid and invalid."

I got the impression from this that you didn't consider the T&Cs were a factor, If I've misjudged you, then I apologise. They are of course, which is why I delved a bit deeper into the process after your initial reply, and responded accordingly. I can't see what was wrong to respond like that once I'd looked a bit more into it?

Doodlebug commented earlier in the thread regarding his thoughts about Nominet conducting the auction, I was responding based on my past experiences to which I think you are referring, which has left a definite impression that Nominet have never had such rights, they are meant to be impartial. We all impart some knowledge in threads based on experience, yourself included, but that doesn't mean that by doing so, there is a hidden agenda. I should really have quoted doodlebug first I suppose, but there you are.

On another point, in reply to your question where you ask..
"When there's more than one party interested in a domain name under the sunrise, how else do you propose they pick a registrant in the fairest possible way?", could they not simply adopt the first come first served rule (in terms of rights), fcfs seems to work quite well generally, and it avoids the wealthiest potential registrant simply stumping up money?

 

[anthony]

FCFS in what respect? First person to get their application onto Nominet's desk via a courier, or electronically via email? I don't know why auctions were decided upon because I wasn't paying attention to any consultation that may or may not have occured relating to it. If you want to find out why an auction was chosen it might be best to ask Nominet. If either of you do, I'd be interested to know why.

This is purely academic now of course, but I'd plumb for the one who can demonstrate the earliest established right, whatever the category. The current solution seems to be the most expensive one, in that 9 out of 10 auctions will be won by the guy with the biggest pockets. Earliest established rights would remove that, and cost nothing more to the registrant.

One would hope too that if any auctioned domain is subject to a DRS in the future, then these auctions would carry no weight whatsoever.