DRS consultation - outcome

[paul]

Crazy

I echo Edwins coments and find several things just too hard to believe.

1. A £10 charge to file a case, how will that change anything?

2. From what I can make out, now claimants don't even need to have rights to a name any more! just that they would like it.

I wonder how many big sites will be temporarily taken down for a day or two before Nominet find themselves in court

 

[grantwgrantw is verified member.]

When do these changes take effect? I need some time to get a good list of domains with uncontactable registrants together and to save up some 'try it on for a tenner' tokens

Grant

 

[paul]

We will publish the text of the amended DRS policy procedure, fuller details of operational changes. together with an implementation plan by the end of August 2007.

Sometime after that I guess.

 

[keys]

This is disturbing and it does appear to be radical change in the DRS process. The crucial factor is the apparent absence of any need for a claim to pass a test of validity, if there is no response from the Registrant.

Offering a small window of opportunity to reverse any wrong decisions seems like a gesture of appeasement. Is there now a presumption that the Claimant is right unless the respondent can effectively defend an action?

I hope that Nominet can clarify the matter, and not implement a policy giving obvious bias to either side.

 

[Beasty]

As far as I am aware, this paper has yet to pass the PAB and the Board. Could a Board member please confirm or deny whether this has been approved as board (as opposed to executive) policy please? It is described as an "Executive Paper" on the PAB agenda.

Therefore, whilst it is written as though this is what is going to happen, there is an opportunity to stop/change this. However, since it has been produced only 6 days before the PAB have been asked to approve it, time is short.

For a start, I advise anyone who has an interest in .uk domains to contact the elected PAB by email and say this at the very least - more if you have any specific thoughts.

The Executive Paper is a radical change from the consensus/median responses to the consultation. There are some particularly worrying elements that did not form any part of the formal consultation, while many other "off list" responses do not even merit a mention - despite having been raised by far more respondents than some of those that are included. Further, it has been produced at such short notice before the PAB meeting that the PAB should not reach a conclusion on the matter at the meeting of 11 July.

Instead more time should be given to allow for a properly considered response from the PAB. Time should be allowed for PAB members to seek feedback from stakeholders. The mater should be passed to the next PAB meeting and no response or endorsement should be given by the PAB at this time - other than to request from the Board a reasonable amount of time to form a view and respond.​

Here are the email addresses to use:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

 

[grandin]

Tony Willoughby

Quote 'review function prior to decisions being issued. Its purpose will be to highlight inconsistencies, errors, and to act as quality control. For example, if the group comes across errors, they can refer the decision back to the expert for correction. Tony Willoughby, the current Chairman of our panel of experts, has agreed to lead this group. Members of the Expert Review Group will no longer take decisions under the DRS,'

So does this mean that only one expert truely exists and the others are merely writers

Lee

 

[retired_member12]

A valuable lesson to learn for all registrants & ISPs, keep the contact details accurate & up to date, that's if you want to hold on to your domains.

One can't help feeling though that it is intended to deter current registrants from keeping their mouths shut to avoid comprimising themselves in a DRS response. In other words, it's forcing volume registrants to respond or else face the prospect of losing their domain(s). If you go one stage further on this, you could envisage volume registrants having to produce an awful lot of responses to avoid default decisions. That looks like a stick to hit them with to me, and you'll very quickly see the 'registrants with 3 DRS's' list increase in size as a result.

In the case of names of dissolved companies, it opens up opportunities which previously ONLY went to the drop.

I don't think having rights in generics will be so easy to prove using this method, in much the same way as it is at the moment.

 

[Beasty]

A valuable lesson to learn for all registrants & ISPs, keep the contact details accurate & up to date, that's if you want to hold on to your domains.

One can't help feeling though that it is intended to deter current registrants from keeping their mouths shut to avoid comprimising themselves in a DRS response. In other words, it's forcing volume registrants to respond or else face the prospect of losing their domain(s). If you go one stage further on this, you could envisage volume registrants having to produce an awful lot of responses to avoid default decisions. That looks like a stick to hit them with to me, and you'll very quickly see the 'registrants with 3 DRS's' list increase in size as a result.

In the case of names of dissolved companies, it opens up opportunities which previously ONLY went to the drop.

I don't think having rights in generics will be so easy to prove using this method, in much the same way as it is at the moment.

You don't need to prove "Rights" under this proposal - just file a Complaint and if there is no Response pay your £200 and "Bob's your Domain"! Or have I mis-read the proposal?

 

[NigelNigel is verified member.]

Thanks for the email contacts at Nominet Beasty. I'm looking at proposing a safeguard to stop the £10 Nominet lottery ticket fiasco. If it's 3 DRS's and you're published on a list then surely if an company/individual fails in 3 £10 DRS attempts then they should similarly be named and shamed and disqualified from bringing DRSs for a certain period. Sounds fair. What do you all think?

 

[Reddy]

So, the way I see it, someone will be able to submit speculative DRSs (say 50 at a cost £500) for some really juicy domains, on the hope that at least one of the Registrants doesn't respond in time (they could pick on overseas registrants).

They gamble £500 on the hope they may just get lucky and get awarded a premium domain by default for another £200! But whatever happens, you've got a lot of organisations/people having to waste time and money responding to the DRS submissions.

If you're the Registrant of a particularly nice domain, you could find yourself having to continually respond to spurious DRS submissions, just to keep your name.

 

[retired_member11]

Usually I choose to stay out of the fray when it comes to Nominet policy changes, but this time is different.

The idea that an entity can pay 10 pounds to file a challenge and, should the owner of the domain they're challenging not respond within the very short delay allowed (overseas post alone can take 1 week+ each way!) then they win the right to take the domain for 200 pounds without even having the actual substance of the complaint considered is on the face of it palpably ridiculous, yet having re-read the DRS consultation document several times it still stubbornly seems to say exactly that.

So the new process could be:-

1) Choose a "desirable" domain name to "bounty hunt" (e.g. one where the ownership is in the name of a defunct company or a non-traceable individual)
2) Pay 10 pounds and file anything you like ("My old man's a dustman" for example) since if the owner doesn't respond the content of the filing itself is irrelevant.
3) If the owner doesn't answer, pay 200 quid and hold your breath for a month
4) Win the domain name and hold your breath for a month
5) Congratulations, you've just heisted a very valuable domain. Time to wash, rinse, repeat

You could even use the process (in theory) to attempt attacks against larger sites such as ecommerce sites etc. - at just 10 pounds a pop, you could fire DRS attempts at a whole slew of sites until you get to one where the IT department happened to mess up the updating of the domain contact, the mail gets lost en route, etc. and bang, they're "suddenly" (from their point of view - they were none the wiser about the filing of the complaint) switched off as the domain is suspended.

I sincerely hope someone from Nominet is reading this thread and can see the madness in the above in time to steer the ship away from the iceberg!

Time then to say sayonara to Japan and return home to Blighty, sharpish

It is a quite bonkers DRS proposal.

 

[retired_member11]

Thanks for the email contacts at Nominet Beasty. I'm looking at proposing a safeguard to stop the £10 Nominet lottery ticket fiasco. If it's 3 DRS's and you're published on a list then surely if an company/individual fails in 3 £10 DRS attempts then they should similarly be named and shamed and disqualified from bringing DRSs for a certain period. Sounds fair. What do you all think?

Err, the ' I have a lot of 'friends' ' social networking technique will be well used to overcome this idea.

So the DRS unit will be recruiting quite soon I'm guessing. It will be swamped with 'Complaints'.

I just cancelled my holiday and took on two students as gap year research assistants

 

[Whois-SearchWhois-Search is verified member.]

Under the default transfer process....

What would be the minimum response a respondent would have to make in order for it to go to a full DRS? For example could they simply say "no comment" or if they were a nasty cybersquatter "hahaha now ya got to pay 750 instead of 200"!

If you get three default transfers against you will you still appear on the 3 Cases Respondent Table? http://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/decisions/3cases/

 

[grandin]

Default Transfer

Under default transfer does the complainant have to provide documentary evidence of rights and what rights are acceptable....a mere uk resident could say he/she has rights in a common word or words...he/she could then seek out unobtainable registrants and submit for default transfer on those domain names.

Lee

 

[retired_member11]

Time then to say sayonara to Japan and return home to Blighty, sharpish

It is a quite bonkers DRS proposal.

On reflection this is not so bonkers. If it means lots of dead registrations become live ones again then all well and good. At the moment if the reg is not to a dissolved Ltd. there is not much Nom can do if the agent keeps 'auto renewing' every two years even when there is no registrant around to bill.

Ultimately 'live' registrants have an obligation to keep their contact details up to date. The only issue is how long they are given to respond to a Complaint. I think 28 days would be good, but what if you're stuck in the outback with a flat battery? ;-)

 

[Beasty]

Under default transfer does the complainant have to provide documentary evidence of rights and what rights are acceptable....a mere uk resident could say he/she has rights in a common word or words...he/she could then seek out unobtainable registrants and submit for default transfer on those domain names.

Lee

No need to prove anything - if there is no response you get a default judgment according to the proposal. It takes the current problem of DRS tasting and makes it a whole lot worse. :twisted:

 

[Beasty]

On reflection this is not so bonkers. If it means lots of dead registrations become live ones again then all well and good. At the moment if the reg is not to a dissolved Ltd. there is not much Nom can do if the agent keeps 'auto renewing' every two years even when there is no registrant around to bill.

Ultimately 'live' registrants have an obligation to keep their contact details up to date. The only issue is how long they are given to respond to a Complaint. I think 28 days would be good, but what if you're stuck in the outback with a flat battery? ;-)

It's not the DRS' role to properly manage and monitor Nominet's database. If they have a badly inaccurate set of records - perhaps they should use some of the massive surplus to sort it out. Not very sexy I know - but it is actually what they are supposed to be there for.

Even if your contact details are up to date - what if a letter (not a court summons) does not get to the right person or they are away? Or the company is overseas?

This idea - which did not form part of the consultation - must be a joke/red herring to distract from the rest of the Executive's analysis of the consultation.

 

[grandin]

Nominet maybe afraid of big buck rights holders

Maybe Nominet need to shift dodgy names quickly as the big rights holders may have enough cash to take registrants to court.....

Nominet are more informed nowadays and if I was a judge I would be knocking on Nominets door and asking.....given your vast knowledge why did you not pre-vet this domain name....you took money of this not so well informed registrant....Nominet you shoudl pay this legal bill...

To me this is pure common sense.... we don't sell fags to under 16's nowadays cause nowadays we know it kills!!!!!

Alas, who is on the PAB?

Lee

 

[bb99]

Alas, who is on the PAB?

I believe that this is the latest PAB membership photo:

:mrgreen:

 

[Whois-SearchWhois-Search is verified member.]

Serious though the PAB meeting is on Wednesday (11th July) when we will review the "Feedback from DRS consultation" report (written by Nominet):

http://www.nic.uk/policy/pab/nextmeeting/

If you have any ideas/concerns/thoughts about it please email me or the rest of the PAB via
[email protected] before Wednesday.

I am personally (as a Nominet member) strongly against the "default transfer process" and will make this known at the meeting.

Never mind all the loopholes and problems with it...... it wasn't even on the original DRS consultation and it was only suggested (I think) by Claire Milne (DRS expert) as a "new drs option": http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/16649_Claire_Milne.pdf

Not only that there is not enough time to work out the consequences of the proposed changes. The DRS report was put online one week before the PAB meeting when it should have been ready by "end of May 2007" http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/19826_DRS_Consultation_update_May_07.pdf