DRS is OUT!!!! Enjoy the read

[grandin]

Enjoy the read....Ed is out of the office for a little while

Updating the .uk Dispute Resolution Service

 

[grandin]

yawn!!!

yawn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hazel Pegg]

yawn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Were you expecting something more exciting?

Hazel

 

[Whois-Search]

This would be much better:

"Safeguards for the secondary market ("domainers")"

However:

"3. Introduce a system where the losing party pays for the decision"

Some people are going to love that one .......

 

[static]

"3. Introduce a system where the losing party pays for the decision"

Where does it say that?

 

[Whois-Search]

Scroll down on the first page:

Fees

It has always been free to file a DRS complaint and the money paid for expert decisions is passed on to the independent experts. We do not charge for our administration and mediation services. Some people have suggested that the free system encourages poor quality complaints and we should perhaps charge an upfront fee.

Our proposed options on fees are:

1. No change
2. Introduce an upfront non-refundable fee (£50-100) and reduce the expert decision fee accordingly, to keep the change cash-flow neutral
3. Introduce a system where the losing party pays for the decision

So all of you with "dodgy names" need to reply about that one.

In a DRS case like bounce.co.uk you could end up paying £750 + £3000 + VAT for losing ?

What you going to do if I refuse to pay? Bankrupt a Member? Doesn't that make it free for a complainant in a certain case? At least with "pay upfront" the case doesn't go ahead unless you pay first.

 

[olebean]

IMO this is about as good as one could have expected... I am pleasantly surprised on first glance...

3. Introduce a system where the losing party pays for the decision

With all respect to Nominet and some of you guys who picked up on it that is a none issue its too difficult to enforce (false details etc) and costs to pursue are too great...

 

[Paullas]

"3. Introduce a system where the losing party pays for the decision"QUOTE]

now thats mad

 

[sneezycheese]

And...

Abusive registrations

Include a likelihood of confusion as evidence of an abusive registration i.e. soften the test at 3(a)(ii) ('has confused').
State that the abusive use does not have to be ongoing for the purposes of Policy 3(a)(iii) - it is enough that abusive use has occurred in the past.

Appeals

Shorten appeal timelines, so that a Notice of Intention to Appeal gives another two weeks, not another three weeks.

Drafting

Clarify some terms (e.g. rename 'Abusive Registration' as 'Unfair Registration' as was done by the New Zealand DRS), and rewrite generally in 'Plain English'.

...I know what kind of message I get from this and what's been previously mentioned - Anyone else get the same 'feeling'?

 

[sneezycheese]

With all respect to Nominet and some of you guys who picked up on it that is a none issue its too difficult to enforce (false details etc) and costs to pursue are too great...

...Agreed - If I was to get a bill (and subsequent 'Small Claims' C.C. Claim) for costs, I would be filing a counter claim straight away (financially it's a 'no brainer')! :mrgreen:

In addtion, I believe that this would hold ZERO water for those 'consumer' types that Nominet dislikes so much!

 

[static]

"State that the abusive use does not have to be ongoing for the purposes of Policy 3(a)(iii) - it is enough that abusive use has occurred in the past".

A little concerning, but not so easy to prove. Almost a redundant point?

 

[olebean]

"State that the abusive use does not have to be ongoing for the purposes of Policy 3(a)(iii) - it is enough that abusive use has occurred in the past".

A little concerning, but not so easy to prove. Almost a redundant point?

It depends in what context, does that mean purchasing a domain that was abusive could then be passed onto the new owner?

 

[grandin]

buyer beware

buyer beware, no further comment

 

[domaingenius]

(How we handle descriptive terms within the DRS)

The problem I see with all the text of this is that the DRS is trying to cobble together its own version of the Trademark Laws. What I see happening here is an attempt to lower the threshold even more. The test should be whether the complainant (a) has rights in the name AND (b) can prove that the name has been used in a class (i.e. to sell a product/s or service) that the complainant has rights in. That is still lower that the TM test in that such generic words to obtain a TM would need it to be disctintive in colour or form . It really is ridiculous for Nominet to seek to cobble together some hybrid TM law. WHY NOT follow TM laws as far as possible, after all it is TM's that most complainants are using to make the complaint, therefore it is an INEQUALITY to then say that the respondent cannot thus use TM laws and rules to defeat such complaints.

(Safeguards for the secondary market ("domainers") )

QUOTE: "we propose to extend the examples of things that are not necessarily evidence of 'abuse' " end quote;

Note the words "not necessarily" which means that it takes us no further. Either parking and selling domains is abusive or it is not, but all this says is "not necessarily" which means SFA and means that we are back at square one. If Nominet think that the registering on many domain names is wrong or that then every domain that is complained about has been abusively registered then it should stop taking peoples money and say that you are only allowed to register 5 or so domains.

Question 2 asks you to state your opinion but then includes the "not necessarily" so what the H is the point of that. It either is or it is'nt !!.
and saying what way you would vote is a waste of time. Just tell me Nominet,how do the words "Not Necessarily" mean anymore than "make your own choice" which is exactly the same as it is now ?. IF ,and I say "IF, Nominet actually want opinions then why do they not ask the question "Should the parking of domain names on PPC websites and/or the registration of large numbers of domains be considered abusive" ??.


(FEES)

As regards fees, bearing in mind that most of the complainants are large companies I would say that the costs should be payable by the complainant upfront . I dont think any

The whole consultation is written in such a way as to "pen in" the replies
in such as manner as to say "do you want to be shafted once or three times" when in fact you actually want to reply "I dont want to be shafted at all" but of course there is no option for that in the consultation paper.

Nope it is a waste of time replying to the consultation paper the way it is written !.

DG

 

[Beasty]

Nope it is a waste of time replying to the consultation paper the way it is written !.

Then let's debate the issues that each of us is interested in - rather than just the issues raised by Nominet. I presume that the list of matters is not exclusive and new issues can be raised?

My first suggestion - a time limit of two years from registration/use - after which a complaint can not be raised. NZ and China have both adopted time limits in their systems recently.

 

[Hazel Pegg]

My first suggestion - a time limit of two years from registration/use - after which a complaint can not be raised. NZ and China have both adopted time limits in their systems recently.

I assume this would mean 2 years after any use that might be cited as 'abusive'?

Hazel

 

[domaingenius]

Then let's debate the issues that each of us is interested in - rather than just the issues raised by Nominet. I presume that the list of matters is not exclusive and new issues can be raised?

My first suggestion - a time limit of two years from registration/use - after which a complaint can not be raised. NZ and China have both adopted time limits in their systems recently.

That may be a good idea ,and then sign it en masse and send it in to Nominet.

DG

 

[Beasty]

I assume this would mean 2 years after any use that might be cited as 'abusive'?

Hazel

Any significant change of use. In other words, if there has been either an alleged abusive registration and/or abusive use (we'll get to the issue of "either/or" (DRS) or "and" (UDRP) later I think!) - the complainant has two years from the first example in which to complain. If they have not noticed (suggesting the harm can not be that severe) or has chosen not to take action sooner - then they can go court if they think they have a claim and are out of time under the DRS.

The abiity to use an ADR system like the DRS is a privelege, not a right - so it is perfectly reasonable for the provider to stipulate a cut off date and give certainty to its customers (the regsitrants) that after a certain time they can carry on with their conduct without fear of a claim under the system. The courts do the same thing with the Limitation Act - 1 year for defamation, 3 years for personal injury, 6 years for most other things, 12 years for property claims. The TM act limits claims against existing activity by another regsitered mark holder once 5 years have passed.

So if someone has been using a domain in a particular way for 2 years, they will be safe from a DRS. If they significantly change the use - then the clock could be reset.

 

[Hazel Pegg]

So if someone has been using a domain in a particular way for 2 years, they will be safe from a DRS. If they significantly change the use - then the clock could be reset.

Seems reasonable. I'm inclined to support such a time limit.

Hazel

 

[grandin]

Suprised

I was surprised to see that not much work had been done on the content....to me its seems....here you are stakeholders these are the concepts now you write it for us.

Maybe Nominet don't have the expertise to write a new DRS.

Personally it would have been a step forward if the drs was written and for us to then pull it apart.

The most interesting is regarding ppc.

If ppc is a legitmate use then I must ask this:-

If your ppc page is called sandles and you have a click through to holidays.....will this be abusive on sandals the holiday people?

If yes (which I presume) then the Patent office need to be aware:-

If a ppc contains many links to a variety of shops then this becomes a unregsitered right of use at the point the ppc page goes live. Any later trade mark in the same text would directly infringe on the prior unregisterd right .

Nominet are you going to continue to 'catch it all' in favour of trade mark holders?

I am sure it will be a one way ticket to no where

IT CAN ONLY BE UNFAIR BOTH WAYS

Lee