Is the DRS rotten?

[grandin]

AH...has the DRS got wood rot?

With age does the DRS just get worse?

Can you treat dry rot....assuming dry humour?

Scrap the current system, devise the perfect system and then work downwards until the workable system is found

Lee

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Scrap the current system, devise the perfect system and then work downwards until the workable system is found

I'll look forward to reading your response to the DRS Review.

Hazel

 

[olebean]

hazel

are you responding?

 

[rob]

hazel

are you responding?

I hope everyone who has moaned about the DRS is - otherwise it will have been hollow words

 

[olebean]

I hope everyone who has moaned about the DRS is - otherwise it will have been hollow words

I agree....

 

[weycresto]

I think my proposal for the DRS would be for Nominet to lock the complainant
and complainee in a room until they reached agreement. If they couldn't the domain in dispute gets deleted and doesn't becomes available for at least 10 years (or ever). Not sure thats a serious or credible solution however. ;o)

I'm coming to the view that perhaps Nominet shouldn't be involved at all.

 

[sneezycheese]

I'm coming to the view that perhaps Nominet shouldn't be involved at all.

...Agreed.

 

[Paullas]

I think my proposal for the DRS would be for Nominet to lock the complainant
and complainee in a room until they reached agreement. If they couldn't the domain in dispute gets deleted and doesn't becomes available for at least 10 years (or ever). Not sure thats a serious or credible solution however. ;o)

I'm coming to the view that perhaps Nominet shouldn't be involved at all.

sounds like an idea, anything is better than what is proposed..

 

[domaingenius]

I think my proposal for the DRS would be for Nominet to lock the complainant
and complainee in a room until they reached agreement. If they couldn't the domain in dispute gets deleted and doesn't becomes available for at least 10 years (or ever). Not sure thats a serious or credible solution however. ;o)

I'm coming to the view that perhaps Nominet shouldn't be involved at all.

Ive long suggested that they contract out the DRS to the new Patent Office mediation service/dispute resolution service because then at least they would perhaps refer to TM laws properly rather than on one sided basis.

DG

 

[Crusader-K]

Ive long suggested that they contract out the DRS to the new Patent Office mediation service/dispute resolution service because then at least they would perhaps refer to TM laws properly rather than on one sided basis.

DG

Some may wonder why Nominet chose to go it alone and commission its own specialised DRS service and associated management software when 46 countries world wide (some of them European countries) use WIPO's Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service for country code top level domains (ccTLDs).

By comparison, Nominet has clocked up sales of its DRS management software to itself (not unsurprisingly) and also to just one other (New Zealand). Not exactly all the rage!

Nominet scrapping its DRS and handing it over to the UK Patent Office or to WIPO doesn't appear to be listed as a specific option on its "consultation". Wonder why ?

 

[Hazel Pegg]

hazel

are you responding?

I will be. But as I've never personally been involved in a DRS I'm looking and learning before making any final response.

I'll also be attending a PAB sub-comm where we will try to draft a collective response.

Hazel

 

[grandin]

Drs

Hazel, Its not about responding its about making sure you bring all interested parties together to get the WHOLE system working in synergy.

The whole system is around 'trading rights' you are a fool if you think the DRS is the root of the problem.

The Government and its Government departments are stakeholders; they have now been given an opportunity under the DRS review to review the domain name industry.

As Trading Standards said to me 'We may review the domain name industry'.....they have now been invited to do so, therefore I am sure a workable solution will be provided.

I am of little use to Nominet, it is easy to pick holes in a system that isn't based on common sense.

As I said to the Appeal experts I have a legal head of a donkey and that my Appeal document was written by the three unwise men.... my brother who is a layman, my father who is a layman and myself who is a layman And that I relied on 3aia of the policy to be a true reflection of the policy.

PS: No matter how much you like Nominet and the people who run it double standards cannot exist....Trading Standards happily take action against an estate agent who doesn't take a sold sign down but will they take action against Nominet for selling a domain name to a consumer???

Lee

 

[olebean]

I will be. But as I've never personally been involved in a DRS I'm looking and learning before making any final response.

I'll also be attending a PAB sub-comm where we will try to draft a collective response.

Hazel

I shall look forward to reading your/PAB sub-comm response

 

[Paullas]

for all who would like to be involved Updating the .uk Dispute Resolution Service

 

[domaingenius]

I will reserve my judgment.
DG

 

[sneezycheese]

you are a fool if you think the DRS is the root of the problem.

...I agree - the DRS is a symptom of a far deeper 'issue'!

 

[tifosi]

I'll be responding in the next month. Having been through the ringer I'll have a few comments. Constructive or course.

Stephen

 

[grandin]

bugging me

its been bugging me, if a drs review is required then why is the current drs still operating. Is it negligent to run something that you know is flawed?

Lee