Nominet Three Respondants Table

[Johnp]

Hello All

I see a certain well know catcher now appears in the hall of fame.


http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/drs/decisions/3cases/


JohnP

 

[GWing]

does that mean he is subject to the 3 strikes rule,

and does that mean if anyone challenges him now, he will auto lose the domain?

 

[Beasty]

does that mean he is subject to the 3 strikes rule,

and does that mean if anyone challenges him now, he will auto lose the domain?

I don't know who you are referring to - but anyone on that list is subject to DRS Policy 3(c) - a presumption that their domains are Abusive Registrations.

It does not mean that they automatically lose their domains if challenged. But it does mean that - if the Complainant shows they have rights - then the Registrant has to satisfy Paragraph 4(c) and rebut the presumption that the registration is abusive. Obviously it is not a good position to be in if you want to resist future Complaints. :cry:

 

[keys]

I think that appearance was made in record short time.

 

[rob]

It is a shocking rule.

If he had Ostashko.co.uk or the like and was DRS'ed it would now be a tainted registration.

What ever happened to the innocent before being proven guilty, or evaluating each case on its merits?!

 

[olebean]

When do the new rules come into force?

 

[Edwin]

I don't know who you are referring to - but anyone on that list is subject to DRS Policy 3(c) - a presumption that their domains are Abusive Registrations.

That's not true. Nominet state that they have listed ALL 3 strike cases, regardless of the timeframe in which each strike occurred. Actually, 3(c) only kicks in if all 3 strikes came within the two years preceding the DRS in question.

 

[grandin]

looking good

three strikes doesn't look good but has very little relevance to a DRS expert who has a firm legal background....currently it probably helps with a no reply from the respondent but under the new proposed rules a no reply is not good regardless...

appeal panel comment.....the registrant must show abusive behaviour....is that abusive generally or in relation to the specific domain name...

It should be in relation to the specific domain name...

 

[Beasty]

That's not true. Nominet state that they have listed ALL 3 strike cases, regardless of the timeframe in which each strike occurred. Actually, 3(c) only kicks in if all 3 strikes came within the two years preceding the DRS in question.

You're right about that - and Nominet should only show decisions from the last 2 years in the list. I assumed that they were and I suspect many Experts would too. Complainants and Experts refer to a Registrants appearance in the list as evidence of abuse under 3(c) - and also under 3(a)(iii) for abuse under a "pattern of registrations" claim.

I will be writing to Nominet asking them to revise the list so that it only shows the relevant decisions - not the equivalent of "spent" convictions as well.

 

[tifosi]

With the Internet - and online shopping/banking/business usage etc still set to grow exponentially for the forseable future the 'fight' for domain names is IMO going to get more competitive (read 'dirty' for that).

With football and fifa rule changes over the last 10 years you get a foul for virtually nothing these days. Norman Hunter would be sent off each match now. A red card was rare in those days. Now it's not thought about apart from the inconvenience of a 3 match ban.

Likewise, the number of DRS WILL increase, with the likelyhood, irrespective of rule changes, or maybe because of them, of more entries on the 3rule book for portfolio holders where there is no real pattern of abuse other than holding a portfolio of generic domains.

There should be careful though about interpretation and application of policy and procedure, especially rule 3. Automatic assumption of guilt will eventually lead to more antipathy to Nominet, and potentially a legal challenge to their authority to rule over this part of their current remit.

The 3 strikes rule should be raise to 5 within 2years and 3 within 1year within a rolling timescale. A bit like car insurance claims. Maybe generic domains should have a no-claims bonus? Certainly possible within timescales of current registrant ownership and change of usage.

Out of date rulings should not be shown on the Nominet site, nor be applicable/useable within future DRS correspondance. A 'clean' driving licence if you will.

When the rule applies there should NOT be automatic assumption of guilt via rule 3. Any instance should be secondary to the evidence of the current case. Any expert with any legal/scientific background should start with that premise anyway. If they don't they should NOT be an expert.

Anyway, enough analogies.

S

 

[stender]

There's a business idea - Domain insurance.

 

[grandin]

Domain Legal Expense Insurance

Domain Legal Expense Insurance

 

[GWing]

Hasn't insurance rates got to be based on some kind of logic,

Very few can predict what nominet will come up with

 

[grandin]

William Hill

How about William Hill...protect yourself based on odds given by bookies....similar to insurance but based on a game

 

[stender]

need to work out a formula for drs probability and have a scale

mycrosoft.co.uk drs rating of 99%
qwertyuiop.co.uk dra rating of 1%

although you'd probably lose both if they went to drs! :???:

 

[grandin]

but

ah...but my question was regarding Domain Legal Expense Insurance...whats the chances of mycro bypassing the DRS and taking direct court action and landing the registrant with a significant legal bill....40/1 ??

On a completely different note....

Given the synergy/relationship/interest between the Patent Office, Companies House and Nominet and the fact that one of those parties appeals to the Secretary of State to review a decision AND that decision would have impact on all three parties....does the Secretary of State have the powers to request a judicial review???

To be honest I haven't got a clue but seems very logical to me

According to Nominet is seems that a judicial review can be started... 'Judicial Review is a special court process used for challenging decisions of the Government or government bodies. Generally it cannot be used on private companies although some companies recently privatised or wielding statutory power have sometimes been included. We do not think that it applies to us.'


Lee