DRS Default Transfer Consultation Results

[Beasty]

In the spirit of providing the PAB, the Board and others with accurate figures following consultations - and to ensure that everyone can form an informed opinion - I have prepared a spreadsheet showing the results of the latest DRS Consultation on the Default Transfer proposal.

More than twice as many respondents rejected the proposal as those that agreed with it.

The figures are:

47 in favour
103 against
1 not sure.

That's 68% against and 31% for the proposal.

I would suggest that there is unquestionably consensus here. We should await the PAB and the Board's deliberations and proposals with interest, bearing that consensus in mind.

 

[Jeewhizz]

In nominet's words, there is a "great majority" here, so it's a no-brainer really!

 

[Hazel Pegg]

More than twice as many respondents rejected the proposal as those that agreed with it.

The figures are:

47 in favour
103 against
1 not sure.

That's 68% against and 31% for the proposal.

I would suggest that there is unquestionably consensus here. We should await the PAB and the Board's deliberations and proposals with interest, bearing that consensus in mind.

We should also bear in mind that it is a consultation and not a referendum or a vote. All it shows is that the majority *OF THOSE WHO HAVE RESPONDED IN PUBLIC* are against the proposal. We have no way of knowing how many people have responded in other ways (private mail/conversation, members lunches, etc) or what their opinions may be.

The purpose of a consultation is to gather feedback to inform the deliberations of the Board/Exec when they make their decision. If all decisions were made based on online votes/opinions then we could dispense with the Board of Nominet

Hazel

 

[grandin]

in favour

I am personally in favour of default transfer under strict guidelines....the DRS has until very recent favoured big rights holders on the basis of 'majority abuse'....under strict guidelines dodgy domains could move quicker through the process and therefore not clouding the minds of experts.

For example a no reply from a tag holder or someone who has known to have registered a domain name with the same email address within the previous 12 months should not have any excuse for not replying.....maybe the default transfer should have a cooling off period where Nominet continue to contact the registrant even after a default decision....no different to a dropping name

Lee

 

[sneezycheese]

In the age of spin – It just won’t dry!

We should also bear in mind that it is a consultation and not a referendum or a vote. All it shows is that the majority *OF THOSE WHO HAVE RESPONDED IN PUBLIC* are against the proposal. We have no way of knowing how many people have responded in other ways (private mail/conversation, members lunches, etc) or what their opinions may be.

...Maybe you have forgot Hazel those all important Nominet processes (e.g. long track/short track) and policies enshrined within the Nominet structure - e.g. ALL consultation responses WILL be published on the Nominet website.

Also - Please advise me on the merits of going against a 2/1 majority on the 'specific question' that has been asked in this consultation? :???: - Wouldn't it put serious questions as to the legitimacy of any such consultation?

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[fred]

Also - Please advise me on the merits of going against a 2/1 majority on the 'specific question' that has been asked in this consultation? :???: - Wouldn't it put serious questions as to the legitimacy of any such consultation?

Think of it as an opinion poll rather than a vote. i.e. when opinion polls are done, they ask a selection of people the question and then apply formulas to the results to give an overall result that is (supposed to be) a reflection of the wider community.

There is also the issue that some responces are a "No, unless you do x, y & z" so if the default transfer system is tweaked in certain ways with specific safeguards, the ballence could be more in favour.

I'm with Lee on this one, if it is done well, it will could be a good thing. As it stands, it's asking to be abused.

 

[retired_member12]

.. All it shows is that the majority *OF THOSE WHO HAVE RESPONDED IN PUBLIC* are against the proposal..

For someone who spent a few years at Greenham Common, your post seems to have forgotten the importance of the opinion of the 'public majority'. Why don't you champion that Hazel, rather than trying to cloud the result with a swing to the fence?

.. We have no way of knowing how many people have responded in other ways ...

Which is precisely why it shouldn't count for anything!

 

[Beasty]

We should also bear in mind that it is a consultation and not a referendum or a vote. All it shows is that the majority *OF THOSE WHO HAVE RESPONDED IN PUBLIC* are against the proposal. We have no way of knowing how many people have responded in other ways (private mail/conversation, members lunches, etc) or what their opinions may be.

The purpose of a consultation is to gather feedback to inform the deliberations of the Board/Exec when they make their decision. If all decisions were made based on online votes/opinions then we could dispense with the Board of Nominet

Hazel

That's the cry of the oligarch - we know better than you, the great unwashed!

No one is suggesting that the Board is obliged to follow the consultation result to the letter - indeed my initial post forshadows that distinct possibility. It is the Board's job to decide - but it is not the Nominet staff's job to do so. The staff are merely employees, they have no popular mandate whatsoever. They are the equivalent of civil servants in the Nominet structure.

The decision makers should be the Board. They are the ones legally accountable for Board decisions. They should be presented with an objective summary of a consultation (as required by the flow chart) and should then decide (independent of the staff) what direction Nominet wants to go in - subject to advice from the PAB. They should publish the plain vanilla data and their decision - explaining what reasons they have for diverging from the public consensus. Then they should stand or fall by their record at the ballot box in due course.

What they did with the original DRS Consultation was to fail to disclose the real balance of opinion that it revealed. They did not publish the raw data - it was left to others to do that. Instead they presented a paper that did not accurately reflect the weight of opinion in the consultation; and presented it in a way that indicated that it was an accurate summary. They should not have done that. Present the figures and then explain why they (the Board) felt that certain options should not follow the popular consensus and why. Be straightforward and then stand (or fall) by your decision.

As for the silent majority myth - well they were certainly asked to respond. Nominet emailed people who had been in a DRS and their lawyers; their members; even the IP clients of their own corporate solicitors. So if they were silent after that, let them stay silent - not be wheeled out like some great unspeaking mass of "public opinion". If they really existed, why did they not take part in the formal process?

Let's also not forget that 90 out of the 151 responses (150 if you discount the US law firm that put in two responses) were submitted before Nominet admitted (privately) that the premise for the consultation did not actually exist. They then replaced the previous claim with the sort of spin Alistair Campbell would have been proud of.

I am amazed that you - Hazel - seem to prefer smoke filled rooms, unaccountable unelected decision makers and "we know best" governance. Are you the same person who won plaudits for insisting on consultation before any governance changes were pressed through?

 

[Beasty]

Think of it as an opinion poll rather than a vote. i.e. when opinion polls are done, they ask a selection of people the question and then apply formulas to the results to give an overall result that is (supposed to be) a reflection of the wider community.

There is also the issue that some responces are a "No, unless you do x, y & z" so if the default transfer system is tweaked in certain ways with specific safeguards, the ballence could be more in favour.

I'm with Lee on this one, if it is done well, it will could be a good thing. As it stands, it's asking to be abused.

As it happens, far more of the "yes" responses were caveted with qualifications than there were qualified "no" responses.

If people want Default Judgment they should issue a claim in the County Court - it costs £150 and you can claim as many domains against a single registrant as you like. It is also well establised and includes proper sanctions for abuse etc.

Why reinvent the wheel? Nominet should save the energy that will be wasted trying (probably fruitlessly) to manufacture a DRS Default Transfer that works even handedly and fairly. Instead they should get on with perhaps less exciting but far more useful tasks, such as cleaning the WHOIS database and sorting out the software that is used for the DRS.

 

[Beasty]

BTW - if it comes in, my firm should do rather well out of it. So my opinion is not driven by self interest - quite the opposite. Thinking about it, maybe I should shut up now...

 

[grandin]

speed

This is interesting ' it costs £150 and you can claim as many domains against a single registrant as you like. It is also well establised and includes proper sanctions for abuse etc. '

So would you say the only benefit of the drs is speed and/or the fear that the county court could refer a case to the high court....I could see alot of cases going to the high court cause all parties are clueless....

I personally think we have issues generally because we have a lack of good case law....dispute resolution is certainly good when the ground is set the question is whether the ground was truely set with the one in a million case

Beasty, when is your interview for a DRS expert post?

Lee

 

[Beasty]

This is interesting ' it costs £150 and you can claim as many domains against a single registrant as you like. It is also well establised and includes proper sanctions for abuse etc. '

So would you say the only benefit of the drs is speed and/or the fear that the county court could refer a case to the high court....I could see alot of cases going to the high court cause all parties are clueless....

I personally think we have issues generally because we have a lack of good case law....dispute resolution is certainly good when the ground is set the question is whether the ground was truely set with the one in a million case

Beasty, when is your interview for a DRS expert post?

Lee

I am sending in my application today Lee - we'll see how it goes! :mrgreen:

Have you applied?

The County Court system has the Patents County Court in London (and occasionally in a few regional centers) that can take cases from within the system where IP is involved - and at the same time keep costs down. If it went there to be heard you'd also have the advantage of a specialist IP judge like Michael Fysh hearing it - which is not guaranteed in the High Court.

However we are talking here about default cases - so file and serve your County Court claim - no response - so once acknowledgment of service (2 weeks) and/or defence (4 weeks) are due - apply for Default Judgment - and Bob's your mother's brother.

Would take a bit longer if you need leave to serve outside the jurisdiction - but does give the claimant(s) scope to chase a number of domains in one action.

 

[Hazel Pegg]

I am amazed that you - Hazel - seem to prefer smoke filled rooms, unaccountable unelected decision makers and "we know best" governance.

I don't and have never suggested that I do. With the exception of your comment about 'independent of the staff' I completely agree with you when you say:

The decision makers should be the Board. They are the ones legally accountable for Board decisions. They should be presented with an objective summary of a consultation (as required by the flow chart) and should then decide (independent of the staff) what direction Nominet wants to go in - subject to advice from the PAB. They should publish the plain vanilla data and their decision - explaining what reasons they have for diverging from the public consensus. Then they should stand or fall by their record at the ballot box in due course.

I agree that the Board, not the staff, should make the decision. But I would expect the staff to be consulted as to the viability of any particular course of action.

Also, I don't think that a consultation is a referendum or that policy should be decided on the basis of any particular pressure group making more responses than others.

I am pleased that Nominet listened to concerns about the unexpected appearance of the Default Transfer process after the original consultation had closed and then opened a new period of consultation on this issue. Whilst I broadly support the principle of Default Transfer I have several concerns about how it will be implemented and what safeguards will be put in place. I made my concerns known prior to the announcement of the second consultation and have repeated them as a consultation reply.

I expect Nominet to consider all the responses and for the Nominet Board to reach a decision taking those responses into account. But I don't expect the Board to say "70% against versus 30% in favour, so we'll scrap the idea". The 'plain vanilla data' that you refer to is seriously flawed in that it represents the views of a self-selecting minority of the stakeholders - many of whom have good reasons for holding strong opinions for or against the proposal.

Hazel

 

[retired_member12]

..I don't think that a consultation is a referendum or that policy should be decided on the basis of any particular pressure group ..

The pressure group you refer too consists, predominately, of multiple domain name holders, and it is entirely reasonable, given the scope of the proposal, that one might conclude that it will be they who are more likely to be subject to spurious and opportunistic claims. Labelling a body of people, seemingly united in opinion to retain the status quo, as a pressure group is ridiculous. Do you think that Nominet UK may consider them to be a pressure group Hazel?

..The 'plain vanilla data' that you refer to is seriously flawed in that it represents the views of a self-selecting minority of the stakeholders ..

And here's me thinking that Nominet UK itself determined the group of people to be consulted. It has reaped what it has sewn Hazel.

 

[Beasty]

I agree that the Board, not the staff, should make the decision. But I would expect the staff to be consulted as to the viability of any particular course of action.

Also, I don't think that a consultation is a referendum or that policy should be decided on the basis of any particular pressure group making more responses than others.

I am pleased that Nominet listened to concerns about the unexpected appearance of the Default Transfer process after the original consultation had closed and then opened a new period of consultation on this issue. Whilst I broadly support the principle of Default Transfer I have several concerns about how it will be implemented and what safeguards will be put in place. I made my concerns known prior to the announcement of the second consultation and have repeated them as a consultation reply.

I expect Nominet to consider all the responses and for the Nominet Board to reach a decision taking those responses into account. But I don't expect the Board to say "70% against versus 30% in favour, so we'll scrap the idea". The 'plain vanilla data' that you refer to is seriously flawed in that it represents the views of a self-selecting minority of the stakeholders - many of whom have good reasons for holding strong opinions for or against the proposal.

Hazel

I agree staff should be consulted - but the Board should decide. And they should do so armed with the full facts - for example the raw data on what responses were received to a particular question - x% in favour and y% against - with a bit of detail added. I assume that is what they were given for the first part of the DRS consultation.

They should not get - nor should they present - an edited version masquerading as a summary. That is what they presented to the outside world in the previous part of the DRS consultation - and it took unpaid people to follow your shining example from Governance EGM1 to produce an accurate set of figures. I thought openness and transparency were to be the watchwords after that event went down in flames.

Indeed, if consultation responses were obviously distorted or fiddled by a "pressure group" the Board could say so and say they chose not to follow the consensus. But I think we agree they should be straightforward about it and live (or die) by what people thought of their decision.

In fact, here Nominet chooses not to notify all registrants - if they want a potentially wider pool of respondents that would be my suggestion - but in any event more people from more backgrounds are I think aware of these consultations than was the case a few years ago. Certainly more people seem to be taking part.

However to an extent one might say "why consult" or "why respond" if Nominet decides that it will plough on in its own furrow regardless. Correct me if I am wrong - but most previous consultations had far fewer responses - for the DRS often almost all from corporates and their lawyers - and the consensus was followed by Nominet.

It seems a little disturbing that now there are far more respondents - but the answers are therefore not so easily predicted or controlled - so the line that this is not a referendum its a consultation is being wheeled out.

What will happen if the governance responses reject the main proposals - will they be pressed on with regardless? In which case, what was the point of withdrawing the EGM 1 proposals to consult and listen? Would you be comfortable with that?

 

[Hazel Pegg]

What will happen if the governance responses reject the main proposals - will they be pressed on with regardless? In which case, what was the point of withdrawing the EGM 1 proposals to consult and listen? Would you be comfortable with that?

If the Governance consultation responses show strong opposition to the proposals from a range of people/businesses then I'd expect the Board to think very carefully about whether or not to proceed with putting them to a vote of the membership. I don't think that anybody wants a repeat of EGM1.

Hazel

 

[Hazel Pegg]

The pressure group you refer too consists, predominately, of multiple domain name holders, and it is entirely reasonable, given the scope of the proposal, that one might conclude that it will be they who are more likely to be subject to spurious and opportunistic claims

I quite agree and think that I said so in my response.

Labelling a body of people, seemingly united in opinion to retain the status quo, as a pressure group is ridiculous. Do you think that Nominet UK may consider them to be a pressure group Hazel?

I've got no idea what Nominet UK thinks on this subject. But personally I don't consider 'pressure group' to be a pejorative term. My apologies if others read it that way.

Hazel

 

[Beasty]

If the Governance consultation responses show strong opposition to the proposals from a range of people/businesses then I'd expect the Board to think very carefully about whether or not to proceed with putting them to a vote of the membership. I don't think that anybody wants a repeat of EGM1.

Hazel

I was troubled by the way the results and the outcome of the initial DRS consultation were presented; and then by the use of spin to cover the big mistakes in figures that underpinned this consultation's proposal.

I hope you are right and that there is some listening and learning going on.

 

[olebean]

I hope you are right and that there is some listening and learning going on.

It seems ironic that a Nominet driven by IP lawyers listens to "pressure groups"

 

[grandin]

Have I applied

Interesting question...Have I applied?

No, I have not applied and set out my reasons below:-

I now have 20000 domain names and whilst I don't believe I have been abusive in registering such domain names I cannot be sure....in my opinion the law hasn't clearly defined abuse..........

The DRS is part of a legal contract, a contract under English law....a contract that empowers an expert to make a decision as to abuse. The 'abuse' question is based on the experts expertise....in my case it is not legal expertise and therefore I do not feel comfortable making a decision.....I feel that any decision should be based on known english law and i am not clued up on the law and never will be.

I would be more interested in lobbying to take over the rights to .uk as technically it isn't being used and should be released on fair competition grounds....Nominet can keep the sub domains co.uk... me.uk... co.uk... gov.uk.... sch.uk......saying that does a .uk exist already???

Lee