Reasons to be against DFT
1. In the following cases there was "no response" yet there was still "no action" in the DRS case:
DRS 04882 mathletics.co.uk
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/21869_mathletics.pdf
DRS 04683 g4s.co.uk
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/20919_g4s.pdf
DRS 04635 martinyale.co.uk
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/20778_martinyale.pdf
DRS 04129 royalb-of-scotlandonline.co.uk
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/11425_royalb-of-scotlandonline.pdf
DRS 03999 sublimsport.co.uk
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/10433_sublimsport.pdf
DRS 03658 spafinders.co.uk
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/8146_spafinders.pdf
DRS 03657 spafinder.co.uk
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/8147_spafinder.pdf
Please explain why under a "default transfer process" should a complainant get the names above when they haven't "demonstrated that it has Rights in the name" or the respondent hasn't being using it abusively? Under the current system the registrant got to keep the name.
2. Nominet suggest in the "majority of recent decisions (about 70%) have been "no response" cases".
So does this mean a complainant now has a 70% chance of winning a DRS under the default transfer process?
With such good odds the number of DRS cases will dramatically increase?
Especially when it will only cost £10 to have a 'pop' at any high profile generic domain name.
I have had already had 'domainers' ask me when is this coming in to effect so they can file a number of cases.
3. It is not as simple as the respondent doesn't want to reply.
If you look at those in the "3 cases respondent table" who are most likely not to reply:
http://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/decisions/3cases/
These are clever wealthy individuals who know how to defend themselves if necessary.
They will respond and with some force if they feel the need to.
For example: DRS 03676 Robert Morrison privalige.co.uk
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/9377_privalige_appeal___question_answer.pdf
Maybe it is the case they do not want to get their comments Googled for all to see?
Maybe their business model is to settle during mediation for £500?
4. Minimum response
There is no definition of a minimum response under the DRS.
Therefore will we now see responses like "I disagree with everything in these allegations" or "no comment" or even "HAHA now you got to pay £750 instead of £200"?
I believe the "default transfer process" will provoke people to reply like this and it will turn very ugly indeed.
Someone could even setup defaultreply.org.uk with a email form template.
5. It puts large domain portfolio owners at risk.
If you are someone who has registered a large number of high value generic domain names in the past your names are under greater risk from this default transfer process. What happens if they start receiving high volumes of DRS letters constantly month after month because of the "default transfer process"?
Nominet may want to make the DRS cheap for everyone however for those people their solicitors bills will go through the roof.
Even I myself could have a go at "andrew.co.uk" for example in the hope the registrant wouldn't reply.
Many of these registrants also tend to use PO Box's or Addresses abroad.
The problems that can arise because of this were already highlighted in the bounce.co.uk Appeal:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/10081_bounce_appeal.pdf
Are we now to suggest these types of names are to be default transferred because of the same reasons?
Finally many of these people hold a lot of voting power within the Nominet membership.
If they are upset by the "default transfer process" then they are likely to use that voting power.
Already it is interesting that people who normally keep out of such debates have spoken on the issue. Edwin Hayward of
www.memorabledomains.co.uk with an address in Japan writes:
"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".
http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/domain-name-disputes/20433-drs-consultation-outcome-2.html#post79805
6. Inconsistent transfers.
I feel the "default transfer process" will put Nominet in a difficult position legally.
With clear typosquatting or cybersquatting domain names like DRS 04630 thomascookgroup.co.uk Nominet could transfer the domain names without any hassle.
However what happens when someone gets a default transfer on a high profile company domain like google.co.uk (someone far bigger than Nominet loses a name)
or a high value generic domain name like bounce.co.uk. Will Nominet carry out the default transfer policy then?
7. Where is the money going?
In a DRS case the expert gets £750 for spending a few hours of their time reviewing and writing the response.
Under a "default transfer" the expert wouldn't see the case at all and the money (£200) will go directly to Nominet.
Nominet say "Money raised through the upfront fee and the default transfer will be put towards development of the DRS service, for example by contributing to the increased cost of the Expert Review Group".
So are experts on the "Expert Review Group" to be paid by Nominet for their time? OR are they only allowed to claim expenses (like the PAB)?
8. Cybersquatter v Cybersquatter DRS
Let's say cybersquatter A has a high value PPC traffic trademarked domain registered to a PO Box/overseas Address.
Another Cybersquatter B then decides he wants trademaked domain and files a DRS from his PO Box/overseas address.
Cybersquatter A doesn't responsed because his address is fake/never checked and Cybersquatter B gets high value PPC name for £200.
