Nominet plan could trip legit domain name holders, warns expert

[Whois-Search]

Interesting article just been posted on Out-Law:

http://www.out-law.com/page-8479

"Barker said that there was one missing safeguard related to the fact that many people do not keep their contact details up to date. Legitimate domain names could be taken from their owners because out of date contact details meant the owner had not received notification of a claim, he said".

"Barker said that in order to make sure that a domain holder is made aware of the changes, the policy should be changed on a 'rolling' basis, so that it only comes into effect once a person renews their registration of a domain".

 

[stevebrowne]

And as Frank Schilling says:

"It still makes the .co.uk space less desirable.. Would you want to reg a name there knowing you have to keep fending off triflers trying to take an illegitimate poke at you?"

http://frankschilling.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/nominet-to-make.html

So if Nominet want to scare off global take up of the .co.uk space, they are doing OK so far...!

 

[njf]

Out-Law: "Please check back here soon for this story: it is temporarily off-line."

The four stories around surrounding it this month are on-line.

Is it pessimism to believe they may have been influenced to remove it permanently?

 

[rob]

"it is temporarily off-line"

Interesting to see if it comes back in one piece

 

[monaghan]

A new market for "managed domains" ?

The registrar holds onto the contact details a copy of the necessary legal paperwork which relates the domain to the business and defends the DRS claims for you. If you pitch the fee right, I'm sure you'd get some business customers

 

[Whois-Search]

Editor's note: A story appeared on OUT-LAW yesterday under the headline 'Nominet plan could trip legit domain name holders, warns expert'. That story focused on the need for additional safeguards in Nominet's plan. When it was written, our interpretation of Nominet's consultation was that its fast-track procedure would require only a summary claim. Nominet contacted OUT-LAW yesterday to clarify that a complaint must be submitted in full "including your arguments and evidence as to Rights and Abusive Registration." We think that is the wrong approach and a more significant issue than the need for safeguards. Accordingly we removed that story and replaced it with this one, which we hope will provoke some debate on this subject.

http://www.out-law.com/page-8481

 

[Beasty]

Ed Phillips has done a piece for the Society for Computers and Law magazine - the byline asks whether it is a winning formula or a misjudgment - with Ed skillfully summarising some of the issues before managing to land firmly on the fence as to whether it is a good idea or not.

I can reveal that he also refers to a "co-ordinated response from the domain traders/secondary market." Unfortuantely the article was written before the real response statistics were published, so Ed does not comment on Nomint's decision to ignore the majority/consensus view on many issues.

 

[grandin]

On reflection

On reflection I think this default transfer is a good thing as long as a mechanism exists where a previous owner can claim it back if he/she can show that the complainant used the system in bad faith....and then one strike and out....no maximum period for claiming a name back i.e. the new owner would use the domain name at their own risk...that one day the previous owner could come knocking! Also would need a restriction on transferring on

 

[retired_member12]

...On reflection I think this default transfer is a good thing...

Ay up, Grandin's spotted a cracker with out of date contact details!!

 

[Whois-Search]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/20/nominet_domain_dispute_plan/