Fair consultation?

[Whois-Search]

Please could someone tell me the difference between this:

http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/domain-name-disputes/14832-drs-response-template.html

Which has been called "Lobbying and circulation of pro forma response".....

http://www.domaindisputes.co.za/downloads/NominetSlides/NominetADRWorkshop070904session4.pdf


And this sent out today by Nominet's solicitors for the Default Transfer
consultation:

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?article_id=52610

I also notice a spike in responses since CMS Cameron McKenna emailed it's
mailing list of clients on the 19th September:

http://www.law-now.com/DirectMail/{6B5D565E-1D68-45E1-911C-6244327E8E03}_newnominetsept2007.htm

See the Responses on the bottom of:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/consultations/defaulttransfer/

Will the Camerons IP clients be described by Nominet as "activists" or as a co-ordinated lobby group and given less weight than other respondents?

 

[Beasty]

I posted this on another thread, but it makes sense to add it here too I think.

Am I being a bit thick, or are the figures and statements used in the consultation misleading:

Consultation - "In our experience, for the great majority of domain name disputes a third party rights holder has a straightforward claim to a domain name and the respondent does not submit any reply to their complaint."

Nominet's own statistics - "The average response rate to valid disputes over the last 12 months was 47%"

http://www.nominet.org.uk/intelligence/statistics/drs/

Even if all of the 53% no response cases had a "straightforward claim" - and we know they did not because some of them fail when presented to an Expert - can a 53:47 split be fairly described as a "great majority" of cases?

If anything, this differential seems to be dropping towards parity and beyond. Nominet's graphs show that in the past 2 months where figures were available (May and June 2007) the Response rate was over 80%.

http://www.nominet.org.uk/intelligen...contentId=2915

Consultation - "In over 95% of no response cases currently, the complainant wins."

Nominet's own figures - This statistic is misleading. Even if it is true of cases that are referred to an Expert (we can not say for sure as the raw data is not available), it is certainly not accurate as an unqualified statement about all no-response cases.

That is because it ignores the cases that are dropped, even where there is no response.

Overall, according to Nominet's website, 32% of all cases are dropped.

http://www.nominet.org.uk/intelligen...contentId=2915

According to graphs used by Nominet's in-house solicitor at a recent presentation, more than half of the "no response" cases dealt with in March 2007 (the most recent month with complete figures) resulted in the complainant dropping the case.

In October 2006 (the busiest month for no-response cases in the charts shown) the figure was 16 out of 35 cases resulted in a transfer - only in about 45% of no response cases does the complainant win.

http://www.domaindisputes.co.za/down...70904Stats.pdf

If someone (Nominet) has the raw data on all "no response" cases for a longer period, perhaps they could share them with us.

They might also want to either point out where I am going wrong with this analysis - or to re-start the consultation using accurate and objective figures in the covering paper.

 

[sneezycheese]

Am I being a bit thick, or are the figures and statements used in the consultation misleading

...I think you may not be too far off the mark there Beasty - See this statement from Nominet on Nomsteer:

Hi,

As a result of comments made on this list, we have become aware of two
mistakes on the consultation on the DRS default transfer.

Where the text read:
In our experience, for the great majority of domain name disputes a third
party rights holder has a straightforward claim to a domain name and the
respondent does not submit any reply to their complaint.

it now reads:
In our experience, for the great majority of domain name disputes where a
third party rights holder has a straightforward claim to a domain name and
the respondent does not submit any response to their complaint, the
complainant succeeds at expert decision.

and for further clarification we have added the following:
Also, in our experience, the majority of domain name disputes that go to
an expert decision are cases where the complainant is a third party rights
holder who has a straightforward claim to a domain name and the respondent
has not submitted a response to the complaint.

and where the text read:
In over 95% of no response cases currently, the complainant wins.

it now reads:
Currently, in over 95% of no response cases that go to an expert decision,
the complainant wins.

The updated page is available here:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/consultations/defaulttransfer/

We have also published some statistics on this here:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/23360_NominetDRSStats.pdfWe apologise for these errors.
Thanks

Phil Kingsland
Nominet UK

...Raises some interesting questions me thinks :twisted:

Anyone like to comment?

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[Beasty]

Submitted twice by mistake - oops!

 

[Beasty]

Nominet have admitted that the original reason given for this proposal is wrong. However, instead of accepting the logical consequence of their mistake, they have engaged in meaningless spin doctoring.

In the original consultation they claimed that :

the great majority of domain name disputes ... the respondent does not submit any reply to their complaint.

It is with this situation in mind that the default transfer process is now being proposed.

But we now know - and they accept - that "this situation" does not exist. The truth is that less than 20% of DRS cases started in the last two months where figures are available resulted in no response being filed. Under 20% - not a "great majority".

Over the previous 12 months the figure is said to be 53% - and that is dropping fast judging from recent monthly stats. Again, no "great majority".

Simply put, the figures tell us that the reason the whole proposal was presented on does not exist.

However, rather than admit this fact in plain English, Nominet chose to admit the error only on the nom-steer closed mailing list - and then engaged in the type of spin doctoring that Alistair Campbell would have been proud of.

Without mentioning the change, the consultation page now says this:

In our experience, for the great majority of domain name disputes where a third party rights holder has a straightforward claim to a domain name and the respondent does not submit any response to their complaint, the complainant succeeds at expert decision.

Also, in our experience, the majority of domain name disputes that go to an expert decision are cases where the complainant is a third party rights holder who has a straightforward claim to a domain name and the respondent has not submitted a response to the complaint.

Clearly they had no intention of letting the facts get in the way of a good story! If you actually read what the site now says, it merely states a hypothetical case that is both blindingly obvious and meaningless at the same time.

Again, they stick to the 95% statistic for victories for the complainant in no response cases that go to an expert - whereas the original justification on the basis of all such no response cases drops to 45%. No mention of that on the site.

As it happens, even if the "great majority" of cases were no response ones, there are a number of strong arguments that should ensure that it was not introduced. For a start, there is no need to re-invent the wheel - the County Court system (including the IP specialist Patents County Court) offers the opportunity to issue and serve proceedings for a court fee of £150. If there is no response, default judgment can be applied for.

Cheaper than the DRS proposal and it would allow complainants to bring actions for any number of domains against any of the regular faces on the DRS that give rise to the perceived need for this. There is no need to re-write the DRS in a way that will impact any number of legitimate registrants.

I urge you to complete the DRS consultation and to reject this transparently flawed proposal. It's only a tick box question - it will only take a minute - and it has to be done by tomorrow 3 October.

 

[Edwin]

I don't know how quickly they update the received responses list, but I've filed my objection.

 

[njf]

Beasty - Thanks for the reminder - I've posted my response - Let's hope they listen to reason, withdraw and have a think about what they are proposing. I would find it hard to trust them as our national registry if they don't. Thanks - Nick.

 

[Beasty]

I see from the updated stats page that the "no response" rate is now down to 50% for the past 12 months - there goes the claim that this was needed to deal with any sort of majority of cases! :???:

 

[olebean]

There seems a lot of "i've been through a DRS" responses.. Any thoughts?

 

[bb99]

There seems a lot of "i've been through a DRS" responses.. Any thoughts?

I guess it would be "normal" for Nominet to email those involved in past DRS cases to let them know about the consultation.

It would not be normal, however, for them to just email those who may have benefitted from the default transfer had it been in place

Not that I'm saying that's happened, I'm just saying that it would be a bit deviant if it did happen.

 

[Beasty]

I guess it would be "normal" for Nominet to email those involved in past DRS cases to let them know about the consultation.

It would not be normal, however, for them to just email those who may have benefitted from the default transfer had it been in place

Not that I'm saying that's happened, I'm just saying that it would be a bit deviant if it did happen.

As far as I am aware, they emailed everyone who has either been a party to a DRS or represented those in a DRS. I have no problem with that, save that it creates an atypical pool of recipients of the notice - notably resulting in a disproportionate number of lawyers receiving the mail.

Those that respond are (as with all things) those with the strongest level of interest. The same, however, could be said of the responses that may result from posts on here.

In my view, to get an accurate picture, they should email all registrants. Personally, I'd rather know about a proposed change to my contract before it happened - rather than finding out by email after the event.

 

[bb99]

Personally, I'd rather know about a proposed change to my contract before it happened - rather than finding out by email after the event.

Agreed - although the sad fact is that most registrants just don't know who Nominet is, nor do they care. That's just how it is