Drs

[texidriver]

"2. Communication

a. We will send a complaint ... to the Respondent by ..
ii. sending the complaint in electronic form .... by e-mail to;..

A. postmaster@<the Domain Name in dispute>; "

Why does Nominet do that when the default e-mail address @ 123-reg for example is;

...webmaster@the Domain Name in dispute.co.uk !?


"11. Implementation of Expert Decisions

a. If the Expert makes a Decision that a Domain Name registration should be cancelled, suspended, transferred or otherwise amended,"


If there is a choice, I can not find one DRS that made a decision to cancel, suspend or otherwise amend a registration.


"14. Modifications to the Policy and Procedure of the Dispute Resolution Service .........
b. The Respondent will be bound by the Policy and Procedure which are current at the time the Dispute Resolution Service is commenced until the dispute is concluded."


Why does this only apply to the Respondent ?

 

[Michael Penman]

1. IETF RFC say postmaster@ should be working, not necessarily webmaster@ or info@ ...

2. There are a couple of suspensions and at least one suspend then cancel. They tend to be reserved for when transfer wouldn't be appropriate (certain .me.uk and so forth). Often cancelllation would just get the domain name picked up by another abusive registration, and suspension is a bit of a nuisance for us and useless to both parties.

3. The complainant signs a contract to use the current DRS when they sign the complaint form. (Which is why you'll find one early case failed because the form was unsigned.)

 

[olebean]

Often cancelllation would just get the domain name picked up by another abusive registration

That is a huge assumption! Can you explain that further?

 

[grandin]

huge assumption

Michael Penman, an employee of Nominet, states 'Often cancellation would get the domain name picked up by another abusive registration, and suspension is a bit of a nuisance for us and useless to both parties'

My comment: How often? To remain open and transparent can you post the stats please? Suspension may well be a bit of a Nuisance and useless to the complainant but I thought the remedy was there to protect against infringement/passing off not to put the complainant in a better position than he was prior to the infringement/passing off? Bounce.co.uk was given to the complainant even though they have no more rights to the common word than me. I want the name, why can't I have an equal opportunity to register the name? Does this not go against fair trade?

Given that the experts are mostly working for large law firms wouldn't it be a good idea for the firms to disclose the proportion of revenue derived from Trade Mark holders? Some may say that if the law firm had 80% revenue from Trade Mark holders that this may persuade the expert to rule in favour of the Trade Mark Holder, especially given that the law hasn't decided on many aspects of domain name abuse? Not my view though.

Lee

 

[Jac]

Originally Posted by Michael Penman
Often cancelllation would just get the domain name picked up by another abusive registration

That is a huge assumption! Can you explain that further?

It might well be an assumption olebean, but it is probably one based on experience. The fact is, most good domain names that drop are caught within seconds by the fastest script in the west. Just recently I tried to register 6 domain names (for separate clients) which were dropping, and the clients were watching and hoping. In one specific instance one client even employed the services of a dropcatcher to improve her chances. All of these 6 separate registrations were caught and registered by different domainers and are now pointing at PPC sites. None of the clients got even a sniff.

Conclusion: some assumptions seem more fair than others.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[olebean]

It might well be an assumption olebean, but it is probably one based on experience. The fact is, most good domain names that drop are caught within seconds by the fastest script in the west. Just recently I tried to register 6 domain names (for separate clients) which were dropping, and the clients were watching and hoping. In one specific instance one client even employed the services of a dropcatcher to improve her chances. All of these 6 separate registrations were caught and registered by different domainers and are now pointing at PPC sites. None of the clients got even a sniff.

Conclusion: some assumptions seem more fair than others.

Regards
James Conaghan

Jac

Can you clarify what you are suggesting?

Is it that drop catches activity by definition on registering a domain is an abusive registrations?

Is it that PPC is abusive use?

both?

Or something else?

It also would be nice, for Michael to clarify his own comments rather than there being a probably wouldnt you agree Jac?

 

[Jac]

Your question brings up all sorts of other concerns.

Jac

Can you clarify what you are suggesting?

Is it that drop catches activity by definition on registering a domain is an abusive registrations?

Is it that PPC is abusive use?

both?

Or something else?

Michael Penman wrote: "Often cancellation would just get the domain name picked up by another abusive registration". You answered; that was a huge assumption. I was just pointing out that the minute any covetable domain name is dropped, it gets attacked by various dropcatchers trying to grab it first. There's no assumption in that; this is what happens in reality.

However, whether a registration is abusive or not is ultimately in the lap of the DRS or UDRP Gods, but there is a growing feeling amongst ordinary user registrants that dropcatching (and domaining) places them at a distinct disadvantage; and for every dropcatcher or domainer reading this, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of ordinary user registrants lobbying Nominet and the PAB about the perceived injustices of dropcatching and domaining. And I don't just mean elected PAB Members I also mean appointed members from government, business, and industry.

With the advent of the WSIS (and IGF) the DTI and Government are already taking a keener interest in the internet in general and the issue of domaining and its merits and demerits has already been broached and will inevitably come up at the PAB table sometime soon. And before you all start screaming at me per se, I am just answering olebean's question and I figure it's an opportune moment to point out the problems from 'the other side'.

The fact is, dropcatchers would not try to catch a domain if they didn't think they would derive some financial benefit from it. The only way they can derive financial benefit from it (eg: PPC) is if the domain name resembles a well known brand, if it has a history of usage or if it is a typo which tricks people into going to a PPC site. I have said before, domaining is a precarious business model because each dropcatcher or domainer is hundreds if not thousands of times more likely to be hit with a DRS because of the sheer numbers of domain names they hold. It is after all a numbers game; as indeed is all direct selling or marketing. Ordinary user registrants are less likely to be hit with a DRS because the 'law of averages' makes it less likely.

bounce.co.uk was an unusual case and the 3 appeals panel experts found as they did, but if you look at the One in a Million court case, the appeal decision in that instance was quite fierce in that the judges found that mere registration could be seen as 'passing off' and that domain names could be 'instruments of fraud'. They were certainly swayed by what they regarded as the pattern of abuse of the specific registrant in that case; so the principle of pattern of registration (or pattern of abuse) seems to have been established as far back as 1997.

A lot of people on this board seem to think that trade mark law is clear cut but nothing legal ever is. The DRS actually shields people from the full force of the courts (and the accompanying legal expense) and even if the DRS was a Patent Office system, there would probably still be upfront fees for both sides. Personally, I think we need to work within the present system and try to change it to the equal advantage of all concerned.

That's probably more than you wanted to know, but I think it explains the different viewpoints of other stakeholder groups.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[domaingenius]

But as the Judge also pointed out "There is NO tort of going equipped to pass off" ,meaning that simply owning a domain name is not in itself passing off,but if one was to use it for the same class/es as a TM exists for then could be a problem.

DG

 

[olebean]

Jac

Some of what is being argued is fairly poignant and logical.

In contrast, views that "dropcatchers / domainers" are apparently in some way vermin with no apparent other legitimate activity other than what you write or even the nouse to register anything other than a brand able domain is frankly disturbing.

This statement attempted to answer one section of what I wrote. Unless PPC and domainers / dropcatchers are considered hand in glove.... Including those domain owners who have maybe 1 domain that that is parked?

 

[Jac]

But as the Judge also pointed out "There is NO tort of going equipped to pass off" ,meaning that simply owning a domain name is not in itself passing off,but if one was to use it for the same class/es as a TM exists for then could be a problem.

DG

Accepted... but if court decisions are dissected point by point they often seem to contradict each other. The One in a Million decision also said:

"It is enough that what is going on is calculated to infringe the plaintiff's rights in future"

and again:

"Mr Wilson also submitted that it had not been established that the contemplated use would take unfair advantage of, or was detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the respondents' trade marks. He is wrong. The domain names were registered to take advantage of the distinctive character and reputation of the marks. That is unfair and detrimental".

Confused? This is why I say; what is and isn't an abusive registration will ultimately be decided by the DRS and UDRP Gods.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Jac

Some of what is being argued is fairly poignant and logical.

In contrast, views that "dropcatchers / domainers" are apparently in some way vermin with no apparent other legitimate activity other than what you write or even the nouse to register anything other than a brand able domain is frankly disturbing.

For the sake of clarity, none of what I wrote made any reference to, or alluded to, anyone being vermin (which I think is a tad of an over-reaction olebean) but that aside... there are indeed those in the wider stakeholder communities who regard domaining as an unfair business practice. Are they not as entitled to their opinion as you or I might be to ours?

I am simply relating what other stakeholders think. Why would you not think there are people who might object to someone buying up thousands of domain names they cannot then register for their own personal or business use? Isn't that just as frustrating as some of the guys on this board who get a little irked when someone else has caught a good domain name or when someone else is abusing the DAC with multiple tags?

No-one, and no community, can live in a cocoon. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, just as for every 'right' you want for yourself, there is an equal and opposite 'right' that someone else wants for themselves. This has nothing to do with calling people vermin, it is to do with other people's viewpoints which are just as relevant and relative as yours or mine. Or don't you think so?

This statement attempted to answer one section of what I wrote. Unless PPC and domainers / dropcatchers are considered hand in glove.... Including those domain owners who have maybe 1 domain that that is parked?

Would you rather I didn't advise Acorn Domains that no matter how unjust or inequitable they think a thing is, there are others who think the same from a different standpoint?

I think your interpretation of what I wrote is a slight over-reaction to what I actually stated.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[texidriver]

See the bottom of http://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/decisions/?contentId=2106

www.blakeaerials.co.uk suspension !

www.jacksonstops.co.uk cancellation !

www.truckandtrolley.co.uk cancellation !


What does suspension/ cancellation mean?


Perhaps the truckandtrolley.co.uk DRS should be revisited
in light of the Bounce DRS.

"5. Decision
I have found that
(i) the Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is similar to the Domain Name and
(ii) the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration.
However I also have found that the words “truck and trolley” are descriptive in that form and probably generic. On that basis I am unwilling to accede to the Complainant’s application for the Domain Name to be transferred to it. I therefore direct only that the registration of the Domain Name, “truckandtrolley.co.uk” in the name of the Respondent be cancelled.
Andrew Goodman
15 October 2002"

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/1016_truckandtrolley.pdf

 

[tifosi]

... there are indeed those in the wider stakeholder communities who regard domaining as an unfair business practice. Are they not as entitled to their opinion as you or I might be to ours?

I am simply relating what other stakeholders think. Why would you not think there are people who might object to someone buying up thousands of domain names they cannot then register for their own personal or business use? Isn't that just as frustrating as some of the guys on this board who get a little irked when someone else has caught a good domain name or when someone else is abusing the DAC with multiple tags?

It's an important point, but also note the term business practice. That's what it is. They are 'virtual property'. I wrote an article a while ago on the parallels of domain names with the property industry. Wish I could find it, maybe I'll just rewrite it.

Domain names are the new property... location, location, location. What makes my desire for a portfolio of high class generic domains any different from a property developer who invests in property/land in the hope of making an income or profit from it?

The parallels are there, whether in domain resales, domain leasing, buying domains with the intent to build and sell on an established business on it, or buying established domains with a purpose of making a revenue from it.

Would it be acceptable for someone to knock on my door and say "nice house, give it to me", or "you've done that up well, let me have it cheap". Of course not. So what difference domains?

I've made considerable investment in time and resources (server etc) to develop the tools to compete with others to gain the ability to build that portfolio. It's an investment I'm now in the process of turning into a business.

Again, what difference to any other person building the skills to serve a purpose? whether business, techincal or otherwise.

I've already had one lengthy battle with one person who thought that it was injustice that I got the domain first. I miss out on >75% of the domains I go for. It's life.

Even if there were no dropcatchers, to say that they are the domain they are loking for would be sat there doing nothing is naive in the extreme. It may have been the case 8yrs ago, but not now. For any well known word or phrase, someone would have taken it. At least with the domain resale business these domains are available.

Walk along any street in any town and you'll be able to build your wish list.

Stephen

 

[Jac]

It's an important point, but also note the term business practice. That's what it is. They are 'virtual property'. I wrote an article a while ago on the parallels of domain names with the property industry. Wish I could find it, maybe I'll just rewrite it.

If you manage to find that article I'd be interested to see a copy (privately or on this board). Personally, I am always open to everyone's viewpoint.

Domain names are the new property... location, location, location. What makes my desire for a portfolio of high class generic domains any different from a property developer who invests in property/land in the hope of making an income or profit from it?

The problem with the "domain names are property" argument is that the courts in the different States in the United States can't even agree. Some seem to regard domain names as property, others don't. But the courts in the UK do not seem to regard domain names as property. However, as IANAL applies, I am happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood any of the available case law.

The parallels are there, whether in domain resales, domain leasing, buying domains with the intent to build and sell on an established business on it, or buying established domains with a purpose of making a revenue from it.

Would it be acceptable for someone to knock on my door and say "nice house, give it to me", or "you've done that up well, let me have it cheap". Of course not. So what difference domains?

That's an interesting point, but we would have to assume that the courts in the UK regard domain names as property for your point to have significant credence.

Even if there were no dropcatchers, to say that they are the domain they are loking for would be sat there doing nothing is naive in the extreme. It may have been the case 8yrs ago, but not now. For any well known word or phrase, someone would have taken it. At least with the domain resale business these domains are available.

I agree, no good domain name would sit there doing nothing, some user registrant would register it on a First Come First Served basis. That's what most of them want to do but can't achieve at present. What thousands of user registrants are saying is that they don't even have a sniff of a chance to register the domain name. Some of them go further and say they would have no problem if the domain name they wanted was registered to another business or individual but they have problems with domain names being offered for resale at inflated prices or pointing at revenue generating PPC pages.

There was another such complaint to the PAB mailing list yesterday which ended as follows:

I understand that this is not a simple issue to address, however, I do believe that at the very least the spirit of domain registration is being compromised and many organisations and persons are at a significant disadvantage. Given this I would ask that the issue is raised for debate and added to the work of the PAB, possible with a formal consultation being instituted.

This is just one ordinary stakeholder (and 'would like to be' registrant) stating what thousands of others in the wider stakeholder communities think.

Walk along any street in any town and you'll be able to build your wish list.

Regarding wish lists... as I said previously, I don't think it benefits any stakeholder group to live in a cocoon. I think we all need to be aware of and discuss the hard questions and hard answers, so that everyone's viewpoint is represented. In that spirit, I believe the wider stakeholder communities have a valid wish list too. Some of the people on this board may not like their wish list, but I have to suggest it is as valid as the dropcatching or domainer wish list and/or the standpoint that you have a right to register and build on a domain name portfolio.

Rights are subjective, democracy isn't, and some kind of consensus has to be reached in an effort to accommodate all wish lists and viewpoints.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[olebean]

Jac

I am not suggesting that insulating domainers/ dropcatchers from lobbyists, or other stakeholders’ opinions / suggestions is wise. In fact, I concur with the view that establishing dialogue but with the knowledge of whom and what type of registrant / stakeholder and apportioned representation is prudent. Despite what Nominet (if I recall correctly) may have suggested, I know from experience they have the capability to drill the system.

As for the comment about vermin, perhaps that was an inappropriate interpretation of what you suggest "other stakeholders" consider domainers and dropcatchers...... lets amend it to parasites!

 

[Jac]

Jac

As for the comment about vermin, perhaps that was an inappropriate interpretation of what you suggest "other stakeholders" consider domainers and dropcatchers...... lets amend it to parasites!

er... I didn't actually say or even infer that other stakeholders consider domainers or dropcatchers as any of those names; I just said there are an awful lotta ordinary stakeholders who feel cheated that they cannot get an equal shot at a domain name of their choice because the guy's with the fastest scripts in the west always get there first .... and I'm not entirely sure why you seem determined to push an issue that wasn't there in the first place?

(Maybe I'm missing your point?)

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grantw]

I just said there are an awful lotta ordinary stakeholders who feel cheated that they cannot get an equal shot at a domain name of their choice because the guy's with the fastest scripts in the west always get there first ....

Isnt this just sour grapes??? If the reg system continues to work on a first come first served basis then this is always going to be the case - if there were no dropcatchers with scripts then it would come down to who could enter their details and click submit the fastest at 123reg or wherever - some people would be quicker at typing than others???

Do these people who want an equal shot spend 8 hours a day, 7 days a week working on domain lists and scripts? If they dont then I suggest that they dont deserve an equal chance at all

Grant

 

[tifosi]

er... I didn't actually say or even infer that other stakeholders consider domainers or dropcatchers as any of those names; I just said there are an awful lotta ordinary stakeholders who feel cheated that they cannot get an equal shot at a domain name of their choice because the guy's with the fastest scripts in the west always get there first .... and I'm not entirely sure why you seem determined to push an issue that wasn't there in the first place?

(Maybe I'm missing your point?)

Regards
James Conaghan

To an extent I'd understand that. But public facing registrars also use the same connections to the DAC within the same abuse restrictions (that's another story I know!). Some of these also run monitoring programs for suspended domains. Surely the issue isn't just that there are some savvy techies with an eye on the prize and an view of the use of domains.

That these chose to invest time and effort and the registrars havent is a valid point. Disgruntled would-be registrants may have their valid gripes, but it's a level playing field and some of their anger should be vented in other directions.

S

 

[Jac]

Isnt this just sour grapes??? If the reg system continues to work on a first come first served basis then this is always going to be the case - if there were no dropcatchers with scripts then it would come down to who could enter their details and click submit the fastest at 123reg or wherever - some people would be quicker at typing than others???

Do these people who want an equal shot spend 8 hours a day, 7 days a week working on domain lists and scripts? If they dont then I suggest that they dont deserve an equal chance at all

Grant

I guess it depends on your interpretation of "equal". In the old landrush days of the 'wild west' every wagon stood at a predetermined spot, a shot rang out, and they all raced towards the plot of land they wanted to claim. I suppose that was equal chance. There was of course always an element of sour grapes when one or other person got to a more desirable claim first but at least they all started out as equal. Some may well have greased their wagon wheels more or lightened their load so they could travel faster, but there was (at least in theory) an equal starting point.

If you've got a lightening jet and I've got a spitfire and we are in an air race, I doubt it could be classed as a fair or equal race, which is why I would probably be allowed a time advantage; to make it more equal. Similarly, what ordinary registrants are saying is that they do not get an equal chance at the domain name of choice and they argue that this is what the registry promised them.

Are they all wrong?

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grantw]

Are they all wrong?

Yes

In 1996 we all started at the same equal point but things have clearly evolved since then. It is obvious that due to their uniqueness and short supply domain names can command a very high value. I'm guessing that 99% of these people are not happy because someone else got that £10k domain for a fiver instead of them.

Everyone has equal access to Nominets systems if they are willing to pay for it and everyone has equal access to learn a programming language or to pay someone else to create a script to catch domains.

As for your Wild West Analogy, I suggest that the person who greased his wheels quite rightly deserved to get the best land. He may then research and discover an even better kind of grease and use that on his wagon to go after some more land..................... 10 years later he is a property tycoon and the people complaining are still riding around in their old horses and carts chuntering to themselves

Grant