Discussion in 'Nominet General Information' started by aqls, Jul 19, 2006.
Adding to what Jac and Sneezy said.
Beasty if i recall correctly suggested that DRS experts being able to work both sides of the DRS could assist a case by setting a decision in an earlier case and use that decision to assist commercial interests. please note that was theoretical...
Added to that, nominet were asked if they made checks the answer was no
On the issue of keeping records.
In my view keeping records on domains history longer than is necessary could assist with the veiw that domains are like property rather than an entry / data
Grant on the second part it says they are not required to..... Not that they cannot or shouldnt
However, it does open the question of data protection, if the experts are "independant" should they be allowed to drill the system or should nominet pass additional data to an expert (not that i am suggesting they do)?
Without reading the contract is there a provision in the contract that allows for data disclosure?
Yep I see that, but the 1st part states:
I assume this means submitted by the complainant and respondant??
Who is us.....??
I think you take too narrow a veiw who is able to submit etc
...That would be Nominet.
...As far as I understand it, the only people who can submit information in a DRS is the Complainant and Respondant. So that would imply (by Nominet's own admission) that any any additional investigation/information gathering done by an 'expert' falls outside the scope of the DRS.
So two questions:
1. What currently happens if an 'expert' doesn't follow the rules, or c*cks up big time?
2. How's this situation going to change/improve after the DRS Review?
Are you suggesting that nominet cannot add to the informtion or provide the "expert" with any?
Here are some straight answers to some ofthe Qs above:
1. The experts will often have PRSS in their day-to-day role as IP specialists. We don't provide them with it except by the normal contract/payment route.
2. The experts aren't *required* to investigate. My personal reading of the decisions suggests they usually don't , and when they do it usually helps unrepresented parties.
3. Experts have represented both complainants and respondents. I can recall a case where both were represented by DRS experts.
4. It's for the expert to declare what constitutes a conflict of interest. In most cases they're used to looking at this under very strict rules like (for example) the Law Society's. Experience tells me they tend to err on the side of caution.
5. Experts can't get information from us beside what's on the file or publicly available (including services like prss/marquesa if they subscribe).
Out of interest if an expert can decide that a string of names are abusive / pattern of abuse just by looking at them why have the hoo har + cost of a DRS?
Just bang out a list every month and pass it to Dave in accounts and let him have a scribble. Voila. (!)
Experts are obliged to follow the rules but they are only human and sometimes cock up. If they do, stakeholders like that geezer sneezycheese will complain and kick up a fuss and hopefully it won't happen again... but if you want a guarantee get a toaster.
What I think you probably alluded to was what's happening with the cock up that happened in your case... and I can't give you an answer because I believe the CEO is still on holidays for the next 2 weeks.
Nobody can answer that one, cos the review hasn't been put out to consultation yet ... so none of us know what's in the final proposals. However, when it is put out to consultation you'll have your chance to tell Nominet what you think is wrong and right with it... though in your case you'll probably just tell them what is wrong.
I don't think sneezy suggests his case i believe he refers to that lack of rules/ policies to adjust after a c*ck up which his case through up and where you and others suggested were not in place at nominet
As for the comment about guarantee I do think that is inappropriate...... Stakeholders should not be a testing ground and be refused recourse
In our discusions during and post the meeting you even suggested that something should be done........ Change of heart jac?
Until the review is out, i still believe there will be a tinkering around the edges of the DRS... I also believe it may be prudent to delay any review until after the "property" issue is resolved.
Uh? Can you explain that please. What did I suggest was not in place at Nominet?
Uh? So now I can't have a smiley with sneezy? (See my note below.)
No change of heart here olebean. I think you are being too liberal with the stuff I write.
Well we could delay everything and never do anything but that would not be in the interests of anybody. In any case, if a court decision is made that overrides Nominet policy then the court wins and Nominet must adapt to take this precedent into consideration. That happens all the time with UK and EU law and hasn't stopped law being written.
Note: nothing is inappropriate if it is based on fact and the fact is the human species is prone to frailty just as it is prone to misinterpret or misunderstand. Mea culpa.
I care not to indulge in explaining further, you know full well what you said and the issues it raised unless you have a memory problem in which case I am sure those party to the conversations may care to indudge you.
Again I refer you to discussions at Nominet 18 months - 2 years to change things time well spent? Or money spent? Or seen to be doing things?
Originally Posted by aqls
Does Nominet keep a historical record of domain ownership?
Originally Posted by aqls
If so, is it publicly available?
Director of IT
...Nope I'm just reciting the words of Nominet on the following page:
...the key line is (as grantw has highlighted): "Decisions are made solely on the information that has been submitted to us."
So one would presume...??? :???:
It wasn't my memory that was in question. You made a statement that could be misconstrued by all watching. So I asked you to clarify for this forum what you meant. If you choose not to, that's your prerogative, but it's just another reason why Mike Reid was right.
"Although some of the domain names registered by Respondent do raise questions, a bare list of domain names without evidence of how they are being used and whether they reflect bad faith, and a single adverse decision, do not make a pattern. Moreover, even if it were a pattern, and even if Respondent was found to have been a cybersquatter in another case, the question in this case is whether Respondent has cybersquatted this Domain Name.
(decisions against same respondent in other actions is not necessarily relevant because “[e]ven a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes”)."
the Complaint is denied."
Expert; n. one who knows his subject, trade, etc. thoroughly; !
i am not an expert.
Separate names with a comma.