PAB Sub-Committee feedback on the review of DRS

[Whois-Search]

Here is the PAB Sub-Committee feedback to the DRS review:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/10712_PAB_DRS_SubCommittee_recommendations.pdf

Found on: Next Meeting

Interesting "other issues" section:

We received representations from James Conaghan (elected member) and from the Earl of Errol (appointed member) both of whom expressed the very strong view that the DRS needs to be independent from Nominet. James also expressed the strong concern that the “Experts Review Group” (that monitors the Experts themselves) is formed exclusively by Experts and is chaired by the Chair of the Expert Panel. The personal view of the Chair is that it is neither appropriate nor realistic to divorce the DRS from Nominet.

Also remember who the chair is: Ramage Associates

 

[grandin]

more dribble

'DRS is not intended to provide a forum for complaints against Nominet (which might be a reason to separate DRS from Nominet), but provides a forum whereby parties who dispute rights to a name can seek resolution by independent third parties as an alternative to litigation. '

I was going to ask Nominet for a DRS mission statement but it seems that the Trade Mark Attorney has said it in one.....

We as reigstrants pay for the structure that allows so called 'rights holders' to get hold of our domain names.

Lee

 

[Whois-Search]

This is also an interesting statement:

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.

So I have to have a reason to register a lot of names?

 

[Brassneck]

This is also an interesting statement:



So I have to have a reason to register a lot of names?

This bit worries me too. I don't know if it is badly phrased, but does it mean a lot of names generally or a lot of names that could be regarded as being in bad faith etc.. If not the latter then presumably anybody involved in buying or selling domains, or acquiring domains for parking could be guilty.

Stephen.

 

[Whois-Search]

I hope they mean like in the Alliance & Leicester cases:

alliance-leicetercommercialbank.co.uk +10

aliance-leicestercommercialbank.co.uk + 66

 

[aqls]

what is "a lot" of names.

in proportion to their voting rights?

It reads to me that they think parking is abuse.

Not good reasons include:
to make money
to try to make money
to sell anyone elses goods or products
as an investment
to offer targeted advertising
to sell on

good reasons:
to match your offline activities.

so much for progress.

-aqls-

 

[rob]

Is "to make money" a clear reason?

As that seems to be the main reason for parking.

 

[Beasty]

It's only paranoia if they are not out to get you - "sophisticated cybersquatting" was how a current expert described PPC at a public meeting.

 

[rob]

It's only paranoia if they are not out to get you - "sophisticated cybersquatting" was how a current expert described PPC at a public meeting.

As long as said experts know what cybersquatting means thats fine.

Definition: a person who buys one or more commercially viable domain names for the purpose of reselling for a profit

nowt wrong with that is there?

 

[olebean]

As long as said experts know what cybersquatting means thats fine.

Definition: a person who buys one or more commercially viable domain names for the purpose of reselling for a profit

nowt wrong with that is there?

The academic definition mentions purpose of reselling to the trademark holder....

The so called expert has no basis for such a statement

 

[grandin]

two important quotes

These are two important expert drs quotes which clearly show that buying a generic domain name gives you a right to sell it for profit....no reason exists why your right of use would be limited to just selling thus to use your domain name for ppc must be legitimate use (based on experts) as long as the use isn't abusive to the complainants rights......my problem (as explained under my second drs consultation reply) is that Nominet has given way too much power to the experts who are technically only administrators of a policy not judges

'Respondent registered the Domain Name with the primary intention of selling it at a profit to “an entity to whom the Domain Name would be of relevance for a price in excess of his out-of-pocket expenses……The Panel rejects that argument. That is tantamount to saying that trading in domain names at a profit is an objectionable practice per se. For a domain name to constitute an Abusive Registration under the DRS Policy on the basis of the Respondent’s abusive intent at time of registration, the Respondent must at the very least have been aware at the time of the existence of the Complainant’s Rights. That is not this case.'

and

'It is not abusive to sell generic domain names. '

Lee

 

[Nigel]

This is also an interesting statement:

Quote:
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.
So I have to have a reason to register a lot of names?
__________________
Whois Search - Domain name whois

Certainly is an 'interesting statement' in fact it is quite astounding and shows just how stuck in the past are those presiding over DRS policy. Quite why pay-per-click is frowned upon beats me. A pay-per-click site is simply a mini website that shares its hosting with the provider. It provides relevant and useful searches - that is why many of our domains achieve click through rates of around 40%. So nearly half the visitors have found an ad that suits their need. Which is not surprising when you see the quality of the advertisers appearing on some of the sites. Do these DRS experts also believe that the following list of companies/corporations/government bodies should be frowned upon for lowering themselves enough to appear on a generic relevant domain name:

Just a few of those recently advertising on some of our domains:

The Open University
Direct.gov.uk (yes - the Government)
Price Waterhouse Cooper
British Telecom
The Daily Telegraph
The Times
Tesco
Scottish Power
Legal and General
Alliance and Leicester
MBNA
Axa
Northern Rock
The AA
First Choice Holidays

I gleaned this list in a few minutes and they are a tiny percentage of companies, corporations, charities, and government bodies that see the huge benefit of paying per click to increase their profile in the business world. One further point - very many established websites are simply glorified pay-per-click facilities or simply link to the real provider via an affiliate code.

 

[grandin]

who is abusive

who derives the most from ppc.......google???

Lee

 

[aqls]

And the domain registrars.

Past abuse is not a guarantee of the future!

Though it is mosttimes indirect, they have been selling domains with this useage in mind for over 10 years now.

-aqls-

 

[weycresto]

That statement about registering domains in "bulk" might be evidence of "abuse"
is very nieve or badly worded. It makes me wonder who is on the subcommittee - the Nominet office cat?

They seem to be sending a signal not to build traffic aggregation or PPC networks using UK registered domain names, because they don't understand the business model. Of course its highly likely to result in bulk domain registration!

In the process I hope they consult with Google etc who may be able to enlighten them a little, after all it was the search engines, combined with
throwaway domain prices that made the PPC/domaining business viable.

 

[Whois-Search]

From the Jan PAB report:

8. Feedback from DRS Review subcommittee
Eric Ramage introduced his report from the subcommittee.
There was a brief discussion about the content of the paper that centered around two specific sections. Changes were suggested to these sections that are included in the resolution to this item.

Resolution

The PAB resolved to accept the recommendations set out in the report of the DRS subcommittee, subject to the following: (i) the final and penultimate sentences of the paragraph starting "We believe that isolated offers to sell a domain" should be transposed, and (ii) that the section headed 'Other issues' be removed. The PAB further resolved to encourage Lord Erroll and James Conaghan to submit individual responses on the latter issue.

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/11741_Jan_2007_PAB_report.pdf

 

[olebean]

From the Jan PAB report:

The PAB further resolved to encourage Lord Erroll and James Conaghan to submit individual responses on the latter issue

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/11741_Jan_2007_PAB_report.pdf

That is interesting...