Nominet's recommendation to goto Acorn

[Jac]

Yes jac, they are biased facts

Lee

Erm... facts cannot be biased Lee. Something is either a fact or it isn't, it can't be half a fact or conjecture. Conjecture is a biased opinion, not a fact.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Uncensored .......... like why do they check the PAB meeting minutes 57 times before publishing it a month later .......

Uncensored what? Uncensored conjecture?

As for the PAB meeting minutes. No. They are not checked by the PAB 57 times before publication. They are checked once or twice because they have to be agreed by everyone at the meeting as a true reflection of what was actually discussed and agreed at that meeting. Otherwise it becomes what your kind of rhetoric becomes..... conjecture.

Dare I say, get the facts right.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Fault and can it be proven

and why have nominet never paid any compensation for a decision thru the DRS even though jac has noted that he doesnt think all the drs decisions are how they should be

Lee

That's a fair enough question so I'll answer it seriously.

This is my humble opinion. Nominet is not averse to paying compensation if they felt they or an Expert was at fault in a particular case, but just because an Expert makes a decision that is subsequently overturned by Appeal, does not mean the initial decision was flawed. It could mean that the respondent did not submit sufficient evidence in the original case but did submit further and more explanatory evidence to the Appeals panel. Hence the Appeals panel is looking at much more in the way of evidence than the original Expert had. If a respondent is amiss in not providing the Expert with enough evidence in the first instance, the Expert can only make his decision on what is presented to him. That is how an original decision can be overturned, but if there is no further evidence at Appeal stage, I'd say the chances are that the original decision would stand.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

appeal

actually appeals should not contain new evidence.

Any jac why do you talk about acorn stating....regd tm at own risk??? er great

 

[texidriver]

I don't understand the need for sarcasm ..
Regards
James Conaghan

Someone shoot me.

 

[texidriver]

...It could mean that the respondent did not submit sufficient evidence in the original case but did submit further and more explanatory evidence to the Appeals panel. Hence the Appeals panel is looking at much more in the way of evidence than the original Expert had.
Regards
James Conaghan

5.3 Paragraph 18 (c) of the Procedure provides that "An appeal notice should not exceed 1000 words, should set out detailed grounds and reasons for the appeal, but shall contain no new evidence or annexes."
5.4 Paragraph 18 (h) of the Procedure provides that: "The appeal panel should not normally take into consideration any new evidence presented in an appeal notice or appeal notice response, unless they believe that it is in the interests of justice to do so".

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/4780_ghdappeal.pdf

'member "Justice" is blind.

 

[sneezycheese]

Nominet is not averse to paying compensation if they felt they or an Expert was at fault in a particular case,...

...mmm, not sure about that - examples please. :mrgreen:

but just because an Expert makes a decision that is subsequently overturned by Appeal, does not mean the initial decision was flawed.

...OH, is that right? ...As the B.B. man Pete says - ... :twisted:

 

[retired_member6]

Someone shoot me.

You've got to laugh at that one. :mrgreen:

 

[sneezycheese]

Someone shoot me.

...Nooooo!!! - everyone save your bullets for better targets. :mrgreen:

We love u Mr. T.

 

[Jac]

Someone shoot me.

That would be too much of a kindness. I'd prefer you to suffer.

 

[Jac]

actually appeals should not contain new evidence.

Interesting you should say that Lee... it is my understanding that you presented your evidence in a different way in you own DRS appeal. This allowed the appeals panel to reverse the original decision because what you gave them was apparently much clearer from the written submissions you gave in the first instance. I could be wrong, so feel free to confuse everyone even more.

Any jac why do you talk about acorn stating....regd tm at own risk??? er great

All I did was make a direct reference to something you wrote. I was only quoting it in context. You were the one who wrote it.

As I keep saying, get your facts right.

Regards
James

 

[grandin]

Has no bearing

Has no bearing how I write it...or didnt as the case maybe. 'rights' to derive the benefit of the use of the thing called a domain name (as written in the policy) are established at the point of registration. The only person who has ever disputed the point in the DRS is the expert himself...thats according to thy grandad

Lee

 

[Jac]

Has no bearing how I write it...or didnt as the case maybe.

Actually, it does. It has every bearing. If one submits an incomplete or unclear defence in any DRS, they cannot blame the Expert who only has their incomplete and unclear evidence to judge by. The Expert in any DRS case can only judge by the evidence before him, and if the evidence is not of sufficient quantity or quality as to persuade him one way or the other, I would suggest he has to err on the side of the party who has written the most persuasive argument. (Same in court.)

'rights' to derive the benefit of the use of the thing called a domain name (as written in the policy) are established at the point of registration.

Rights belong to everyone collectively, they are not subject to favouritism or preference. Rights are not about how we personally and subjectively want a thing to be but how a thing must be to satisfy the majority interest. Rights are inherent in contracts and as I have already stated the Terms and Conditions say quite clearly that: "by registering or using the domain name in any way, you will not infringe the intellectual property rights (for example, trademarks) of anyone else."

Everyone is treated equally by the Terms and Conditions of Registration. Nominet was not out to get Lee Grandin when he registered ghd.co.uk. GHD (the company) was out to get Lee Grandin (or at least his domain name). Blame them if you need to blame someone.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[sneezycheese]

Nominet is not averse to paying compensation if they felt they or an Expert was at fault in a particular case

...Is this in da 'Policy'? - The reason I ask is da 'Grape Vine' told me that that Nominet said that there was no room to do this, because da 'Policy' doesn't alow for it. :???:

So who's telling the truth? :???: ...Can they or can't they?

 

[grandin]

follow the policy and code of conduct

follow the policy and make sure you stick to the code of conduct

Nominet directed me to a site that talks about registering typos...the fact that members are telling me to go elsewhere shows a certain amount of unease about my assertions....I am sure noone would dare brag about a trade mark that they abuse on this website...would they dare? have they dared?...how does Nominet fit into all this?

 

[sneezycheese]

Nominet states in Clause 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the Terms and Conditions that: "by registering or using the domain name in any way, you will not infringe the intellectual property rights (for example, trademarks) of anyone else;" and "you are entitled to register the domain name" and "you have not registered the domain name in a way that fails to meet with any legal duty you have".

...So say I contact Nominet to highlight a website using a .uk domain that breaches this part of the T&C's - How does Nominet deal with it? - Is there a 'Policy' (other than the DRS) for dealing with such breaches of the T&C's? :???:

 

[Jac]

...Is this in da 'Policy'? - The reason I ask is da 'Grape Vine' told me that that Nominet said that there was no room to do this, because da 'Policy' doesn't alow for it. :???:

So who's telling the truth? :???: ...Can they or can't they?

For the sake of clarity, it is not policy. The policy does not allow for recompense in terms of the DRS. Some of us think it should and we're still working towards this, but it doesn't mean we'll get there, it just means we're trying to. That doesn't even mean I am right, it just means I disagree with certain decisions and I think they need to be reviewed. If they are reviewed and the evidence tells me I am wrong in my assumptions, I have to be big enough to accept that. Like the old Rolling Stones song says: "you can't always get what you want".

Incidentally Sneezy, this is why I get so frustrated with some of the direct criticisms aimed at me on this forum. I am still arguing on behalf of certain people behind the scenes (and I plan to escalate my argument) but I feel I am being treated with contempt by Lee Grandin, yourself, and a certain insignificant other. If you guys prefer to go through the normal channels and don't want the direct support of one or more of the PAB (and I include appointed PAB members because they care more than you know) then carry on being contemptible and you and Texidriver will get your wish. Though I doubt the more reasonable people on this forum will thank you for it.

That said, it is my understanding that any company has provision within its own complaints procedure to allow for recompense or compensation if they believe they or any other person acting within their legal framework is at fault in a given situation. I stress: this is not Nominet's official line vis-a-vis the DRS, it is just my opinion from what I know of various complaints procedures.

So whilst the official line is that they can't, I think exceptions need to be treated as exceptions and exceptional resolutions reached.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

...So say I contact Nominet to highlight a website using a .uk domain that breaches this part of the T&C's - How does Nominet deal with it? - Is there a 'Policy' (other than the DRS) for dealing with such breaches of the T&C's? :???:

http://www.nic.uk/registrants/legal/terms/

This is what Nominet says about investigating rights.

We are a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, generally performing these services on a cost-recovery basis, and we cannot investigate what rights you have to register or use the domain name. So, we think it is reasonable for us to limit our liability in certain respects so that we may continue to offer our services in the interests of the whole internet community.

This contract includes the DRS policy, the DRS procedure and the rules.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

and contrary

and contrary to what sneezy was told

'This contract includes the DRS policy, the DRS procedure and the rules.'

the drs does have a crystal mark

 

[Jac]

follow the policy and make sure you stick to the code of conduct

Nominet directed me to a site that talks about registering typos...the fact that members are telling me to go elsewhere shows a certain amount of unease about my assertions....I am sure noone would dare brag about a trade mark that they abuse on this website...would they dare? have they dared?...how does Nominet fit into all this?

Lee

For the last time; you were directed to Acorn Domains because Nominet used to interact with the dropcatching and domaining community on here and answers to the questions you were raising were already on this forum for all to see. Nominet does not sponsor or recommend any public forum.

You may wish to note that since your accusations and allegations on this board, Nominet personnel have ceased to interact. In this respect (and as I said before) personally, I think your crusade has been counterproductive because you, and some others, have deprived Acorn Domains of a valuable communication channel and for what? Your own vanity?

Such is life; you can't unfry an egg.

Regards
James Conaghan