Get Your DRS Response In NOW!!

[Beasty]

This is a once every three years opportunity and will make a big difference to any domainers out there who come up against the DRS. The big law firms etc. are getting theirs in today - you should do the same!

Here are the links:

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

http://www.keysurvey.com/survey/131552/d8d9/


Even if you have missed the deadline - try to get something in and boost the argument against increasing the rights of TM holders to take generics away from you - see Q1 - as well as all the rest.

Could I take this opportunity to praise Whois-Search for making such a well argued template available for people to use.

 

[olebean]

Guys use the links provide by Beasty

The one on the front page of Nominet has been removed!

 

[Whois-Search]

Guys use the links provide by Beasty

The one on the front page of Nominet has been removed!

I think the fax machine problem update ment there is no room for it.

Very nice reply to Beasty

 

[bb99]

Guys use the links provide by Beasty

The one on the front page of Nominet has been removed!

Blatantly they are trying to silence the dissenters... I'm going to write to my MP :mrgreen:

 

[olebean]

Blatantly they are trying to silence the dissenters... I'm going to write to my MP :mrgreen:

I don't know of any dessenters

 

[Whois-Search]

the big guns have come out to play

http://www.nic.uk/policy/consultations/updatedrs/

James Conaghan - 16/2/2007
Clive Feather - 16/2/2007
OUT-LAW.com - 16/2/2007
Clifford Chance LLP - 16/2/2007
Adam Taylor (Adlex Solicitors) - 16/2/2007
INTA - 16/2/2007
Tony Willoughby - 15/2/2007

 

[retired_member6]

http://www.nic.uk/policy/consultations/updatedrs/

James Conaghan - 16/2/2007
Clive Feather - 16/2/2007
OUT-LAW.com - 16/2/2007
Clifford Chance LLP - 16/2/2007
Adam Taylor (Adlex Solicitors) - 16/2/2007
INTA - 16/2/2007
Tony Willoughby - 15/2/2007

How can you call outlaw a big gun? the twit has completely messed up his submission.

 

[retired_member6]

http://www.nic.uk/policy/consultations/updatedrs/

James Conaghan - 16/2/2007
Clive Feather - 16/2/2007
OUT-LAW.com - 16/2/2007
Clifford Chance LLP - 16/2/2007
Adam Taylor (Adlex Solicitors) - 16/2/2007
INTA - 16/2/2007
Tony Willoughby - 15/2/2007

And INTA, bloody idiots that don't know what they're talking about!! Can't they afford solicitors to get these things right? but then again going by the aforementioned out-law submission, perhaps they're better off on their own.

Domain tasting on .co.uk, impossible (well sorta ha) - although I note a certain amount still goes on but nothing on a scale of .com and any abuse was drastically cut back last year, most notably by fellow domainers and not any such trademark or solicitor representation.

 

[retired_member6]

Bloody idiots, sorry but it makes me so angry that Nominet are bound to listen to that bunch of idiots when they don't even hardly know what they're talking about.

fair play, aint read 'em all, just those two so far, hopefully the committee sees right through the idiocies and lack of knowledge

here here, well I did write it. :mrgreen:

 

[Whois-Search]

How can you call outlaw a big gun? the twit has completely messed up his submission.

I agree but they are a Nominet commentator:

http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=29&terms=nominet

It would be a bit like Kieren McCarthy sending in a reply.

 

[rob]

There are a couple of current experts putting their replies in - but as individuals, perhaps they ought to be labelled as such?

 

[Whois-Search]

There are a couple of current experts putting their replies in - but as individuals, perhaps they ought to be labelled as such?

Try saying the same thing to the PAB

 

[retired_member6]

I agree but they are a Nominet commentator:

http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=29&terms=nominet

It would be a bit like Kieren McCarthy sending in a reply.

So how can they make such a glaring mistake and forget the respondent has a right to reply, what pay £2k and stop the respondent/defendent from a right to apply, oh yes that's clever. Perhaps they're trying a sly one and hoping it becomes nominet law for three years by mistake.

 

[rob]

Try saying the same thing to the PAB

haha

I had a crack at the PAB's reply as well.

• I find the PAB’s reply to the consultation disturbing: “
We believe that isolated offers to sell a domain, or “pay per click” activity are not of themselves evidence of abuse but done “in bulk”, can be such evidence. We feel that registering many domains, taken in context with other factors can be evidence of abuse. Indeed, it may be that registration of a number of domains without a clear reason why this has been done is evidence of abuse.”

If this is taken up users will have to start justifying if they own over X domain names, and I assume Nominet would decide if that was a valid reason. If this was to come into practice then it is not hard to avoid by having different entities owning the names under the threshold level.

Incidentally would Nominet then brand large organizations such as the BBC as conducting abusive registrations as they own large numbers of domain names?

 

[bb99]

I wonder what happens how - presumably someone at Nominet has to somehow summarise these results into a digestable form and then they can be discussed/statistised to try and formulate a new policy. That's one shitty job that I wouldn't fancy doing*.

Presumably the new policy will just be what it is and there will be no further scope for consultation / voting / whatever? I dunno.




* not least because I don't own a roller or any white paint

 

[rob]

I was thinking the same - perhaps we ought to have a predictions thread

 

[retired_member6]

I wonder what happens how - presumably someone at Nominet has to somehow summarise these results into a digestable form and then they can be discussed/statistised to try and formulate a new policy. That's one shitty job that I wouldn't fancy doing*.

Presumably the new policy will just be what it is and there will be no further scope for consultation / voting / whatever? I dunno.




* not least because I don't own a roller or any white paint

Policy 501, DRS Proceadure 101 Mark 253 Part A Numeral 3 Section 2 Visavis Rule 2,304,567

Removal of brain is a possiblity with regards the idiot recommending domainers pay fees yet don't receive any when they win - submitted by Lee Owen.

 

[bb99]

Aah, it says on t'Nominet website:

What happens next?

Once the consultation has finished we will analyse the results and propose a revised policy and procedure to be adopted for the DRS.

 

[Whois-Search]

Ms Taylor wrote the last DRS consultation summary:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/3004_DrsReviewOct.pdf

Then as its on PDP long track it will go to the board in a month?

http://www.nic.uk/policy/develop/long/

Then maybe back to the PAB.

And if you really want another conspiracy theory have a look who RBS (17 DRS cases) register their names with:

http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=rbs.co.uk

Then have a look at who is the CEO of netnames.co.uk and on the Nominet
board. http://www.nic.uk/governance/board/

Then read this: http://w3.netbenefit.co.uk/news.cfm?DisplayYear=2004&DisplayID=177

The Royal Bank of Scotland acts to protect its online assets with NetNames Platinum Service

Leading corporate domain name management solution selected to safeguard over 1000 domain names

And this: http://www.netnames.co.uk/dnrs/netnames.client.Login

Conflict of interest?

 

[Nigel]

Thanks for the reminder and links on this Beasty

Just completed the online survey. Seemed quite straightforward and didn't take too long. Couple of hours left if you haven't done it yet.