PAB - what it is - what it can do

[Jac]

First of all, I'd like to wish Julian, Rob and Sneezy the best of luck in their bid for the PAB.

My reason for dropping in is that some of the comments I've seen suggest some misunderstanding about how the PAB functions or the powers it does or doesn't have. And before me ole sparring partner grandin has another pop... hello Lee!... in the words of the immortal Basil Fawlty as he poked Manuel in the eye with his index finger: "Let me explain"!

Sneezy mentioned a more democratic PAB as if it wasn't already and "Monaghan" wrote (in reply to Rob): "it would be good to have someone on the board who sees things from our perspective".

I PM'd sneezy about the democracy bit and would like to say to Monaghan that the PAB has to try and see the issues from all perspectives (including yours). This isn't easy, because in trying to please everyone, you sometimes end up upsetting someone.

Rather than repeat issues I've already covered on my own website, you can see my take on all things PAB here: www.conaghan.me.uk

In particular, have a look at "What the PAB is" and "My blog on things". If anyone's interested, there's a copy of the very first PAB Meeting Report from 1999 in the column on the left.

The best of luck to anyone else who is standing. The grapevine tells me there are a few more of you apart from Julian, Rob and Sneezy who've already fessed up!

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Whois-Search]

The best of luck to anyone else who is standing. The grapevine tells me there are a few more of you apart from Julian, Rob and Sneezy who've already fessed up!

Good to see your back James....

If the PAB is democratic already then you will have no problem in them standing either.

Also the people spreading rumours on the grapevine will let it be a fair contest.

BTW Interesting first report .....why are they not on the website before 2001?

http://www.nic.uk/policy/pab/previousmeetings/

 

[rob]

Yes - that inital PAB report / first meeting ought to be on the Nom site as well

Will be interesting to see the final list for sure!

 

[landlord]

For James

Hello James,

We can all agree to disagree.

Mr James can you put the following to the PAB:-

Issue : The registration right is currently useless when trying to protect 'the right' against a later rights holder. The weakness lies in the fact that the registrants intended use is in his/her mind and not recorded on paper.

Solution : Nominet to record (NOT VET) the intended use of the domain name at the point of sale. This should be recorded in the same way as a TM i.e. bona fide intention to use the right for blah blah classifications of trade..... within 5 years of registration. It would also be good to record the nature of the registrants main business i.e. are they domain traders. The record should be a public record and therefore recorded in the whois.

Given that the Patent Office no longer turn down TM applications unless a prior recorded rights holder objects this change could put domain name holders firmly in front AND allow domain name holders to take up opposition proceedings against later rights holders who attempt to regsiter a TM after the domain name is registered.

It is interesting to note the strength of the acorn community....acorn elected to the PAB....good luck to all that stand for election from acorn

Lee

 

[landlord]

yes

yes whois very interesting read...

11. Next Meeting . Sandwiches will be provided.

Lee

 

[bb99]

11. Next Meeting . Sandwiches will be provided.

How times change - isn't it brandy and cigars these days?

:mrgreen:

 

[landlord]

More to the point

More to the point....who agreed that it was going to be sandwiches!

Lee

 

[rob]

More to the point....who agreed that it was going to be sandwiches!

Lee

I for one stand for more catering options, however consumption strictly limited as first-come-first-served with standard size plates for all.

 

[Jac]

Good to see your back James....

If the PAB is democratic already then you will have no problem in them standing either.

Also the people spreading rumours on the grapevine will let it be a fair contest.

BTW Interesting first report .....why are they not on the website before 2001?

http://www.nic.uk/policy/pab/previousmeetings/

I have never had a problem with who stands for the PAB. In fact, I expressed my concern some years ago when I think only 6 candidates stood in one election. The more that stand the more choice the membership has to pick the candidates they prefer from the election statements available. Don't forget, most Nominet Members don't visit Acorn or even nom-steer for that matter, so the first contact many of them have with PAB candidates is the election statements that are published.

I think (or at least I like to think) the PAB is usually a fair contest because it's OMOV, so each vote counts. In fact, each vote can count as many times as a member is prepared to go down the list and tick 1st, 2nd, 3rd or more preferences. That's how STV works.

Regarding "rumours" ... all I can say is this. Forget chinese whispers. They rarely resemble what they started out as, so take it all with a huge pinch of salt.

Regarding the first few years' PAB reports, the quick answer is, I don't know why they are not on the website (before 2001).

Best wishes
James

 

[Jac]

Hello James,

We can all agree to disagree.

Hello Lee,

You are absolutely right, we can all agree to disagree, and that's the reason I arranged the meeting at Nominet with you, whois, sneezy, beasty and olebean a couple of years ago, because I believe you have a right to disagree.

The problem the PAB constantly faces is how to take all the different forms of disagreement and relate them to the policy issues the wider community face. I keep saying it ain't easy, but it's what the PAB has to try and do in its recommendations to Nominet's Board. Finding a balance between all the different disagreements is (IMO) what the PAB is about.

Mr James can you put the following to the PAB:-

Issue : The registration right is currently useless when trying to protect 'the right' against a later rights holder. The weakness lies in the fact that the registrants intended use is in his/her mind and not recorded on paper.

Solution : Nominet to record (NOT VET) the intended use of the domain name at the point of sale. This should be recorded in the same way as a TM i.e. bona fide intention to use the right for blah blah classifications of trade..... within 5 years of registration. It would also be good to record the nature of the registrants main business i.e. are they domain traders. The record should be a public record and therefore recorded in the whois.

Given that the Patent Office no longer turn down TM applications unless a prior recorded rights holder objects this change could put domain name holders firmly in front AND allow domain name holders to take up opposition proceedings against later rights holders who attempt to regsiter a TM after the domain name is registered.

I have always seen where you're coming from on this issue Lee, but is it a whois issue or a trademark or IP issue? The whois is simply a record of who registered a domain name not what their trademark or IP rights might be. It's only my opinion, but if you want to see such a wideranging policy change then the PAB (and Nominet) would have to have a wideranging discussion about the Terms and Conditions. Because if you want to change the information contained in the whois, I think you need to start by lobbying for a change in the Terms and Conditions. Here's why...

For instance:
10 A domain name is not an item of property and has no ‘owner’. It is an entry on our register database reflected by our nameservers which we provide as part of this contract.

Beasty will be able to answer this better than all of us, but if a current set of Terms and Conditions states that a domain name is not an item of property, it would seem logical (and even legal) that we would have to lobby to have that particular terminology changed, and I'm sure Beasty would also acknowledge that top level QC advice was taken, by Nominet, in the wording of their Terms and Conditions. That's the problem with lawyers. They agree to disagree too.

It is interesting to note the strength of the acorn community....acorn elected to the PAB....good luck to all that stand for election from acorn

I would hope that all who stand for election, whether from Acorn or not, would try to understand what I've been trying to convey about the role and purpose of the PAB, and that they would all try to look at the issues above and beyond their own stakeholder group.

I am pleased to say however... I can agree to agree when you say 'good luck to all that stand for election from acorn'.

Best wishes
James

 

[landlord]

change is good

Whois is merely the place where the defined 'right' can be viewed so later rights holder can make a judgement whether the reigster this or that....would also help in circumstances where...


company a registers com2k.net

and

company b registers com2k.com

and

company c registers com2k.co.uk

All could be protected by later confusion if each knew what the others were going to do with their names.

Lee

 

[Jac]

Whois is merely the place where the defined 'right' can be viewed so later rights holder can make a judgement whether the reigster this or that....would also help in circumstances where...

I agree change is good, and I can see your point, but don't you think this is what the IPO is there for, so companies can check up on trademarks and other intellectual property rights before they register a particular domain?

Are you perhaps expecting the whois to be something it isn't? From a global perspective "whois" is just what it says it is on the tin, and very simply put, it is who the domain name holder is.

All could be protected by later confusion if each knew what the others were going to do with their names.

Unfortunately, trademark and IP rights are very complex entities too where more than one type of IP can apply to the same 'creation' - and you already know about the different 'classes' in trademark practice.

So maybe you're looking to the whois to solve all the historic issues people have with trademark and IP rights? There will always be cases where someone takes exception to another's perceived copyright, design, or intellectual property claims, just as sure as DRS complaints are like buses ... there'll be 2 along just when you don't need them! :???:

Best wishes
James

 

[landlord]

dont over complicate

James you are over complicating the issue....I am merely saying that the intention of the domain name registrant should be recorded along with other whois information. Nothing more....I am mot looking for anyone to pass judgement as to whether the registrants use will abuse anothers rights...it is merely a better record of the 'right'....the contract would not need to change.

The costs and confusion associated with TM registration makes it a non event for £5 domain name registrants.

ok less reverse things.....James you tell me how I can prove to the world my unregistered TM right when I buy the domain name???....I can't put a note on the website stating...I am going to use this domain name in the next five years to sell cars......this is a weak unregistered right as I could change it but claim I didn't change it! If however, it was recorded at Nominet (an impartial party) it would protect me.....its no skin off Nominets nose unless they favour people with money i.e. who can afford to apply for a registered mark ie. a TM!!!!

Lee

 

[Jac]

James you are over complicating the issue....

:???: I thought I was actually simplifying it by separating the responsibilities of the "whois" from the responsibilities of the IPO. I'm not trying to confuse anyone, just trying to separate the 2 things so they can both be understood for what they are.

I am merely saying that the intention of the domain name registrant should be recorded along with other whois information. Nothing more....I am mot looking for anyone to pass judgement as to whether the registrants use will abuse anothers rights...it is merely a better record of the 'right'....the contract would not need to change.

Even ICANN states, "It is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's rights."

ok less reverse things.....James you tell me how I can prove to the world my unregistered TM right when I buy the domain name???

I doubt anyone can prove a right in anything that is unregistered or unrecorded. To prove a copyright for instance, it has be recorded, like I might record my copyright on my own writing. I can do this in a number of ways, the easiest being a recorded delivery envelope to myself at a UK address or a letter lodged with an officer of the court (eg: a solicitor).

In an ideal world, Nominet would record and protect all our rights, but the inevitable legal challenges it would face might mean we'd all be paying an awful lot more for our domain names. In any case, I'd be happy to take the issue back to the PAB, as I'm sure would Andrew. In fact, it might be best to send it to [email protected] where all of the PAB can see it. Would the question be: "As a policy should Nominet record a registrant's intentions for a domain name on the whois". If you want to be more precise send it on.

So I'm not trying to complicate it Lee, I'm just trying to explain why it might not be possible to do what you ask.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[landlord]

just to record

The statement you make is correct so please pass it on....dont get confused...to record the registrants intended use will provide no more liability to Nominet than the recording of the registration itself....BUT

BUT and a BIG BUT...once in place I have a solution in respect to EASY pre vetting of domain names.....that is Nominet can remain as 'tribunal'

Mark my word if Nominet continually ignore the fact that they sell dodgy names and dont consider recommendations like my recommendations then they should be hit hard in the courts....no company has ever got away with KNOWINGLY selling unlawful products and deriving a financial benefit...salaries indeed

Lee

 

[sneezycheese]

Change Is Good - Strive For More & Better Things!

I have just one simple thing to say - time moves on and change (progress) is an inevitable thing - fresh new blood will bring new ideas and talents to the table and 'hopefully' will not get dismissed because they do not form part of the 'establishment'.

In my mind the PAB needs a revamp 'Gordon Ramsey styley' to save it from an undignified and painful death - This will be a challenge and will require focus and determination by those who want to see progress and change!

I can assure you that I am more interested in what the PAB can do tomorrow, rather than what it can or can't do today!

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[Jac]

I have just one simple thing to say - time moves on and change (progress) is an inevitable thing - fresh new blood will bring new ideas and talents to the table and 'hopefully' will not get dismissed because they do not form part of the 'establishment'.

In my mind the PAB needs a revamp 'Gordon Ramsey styley' to save it from an undignified and painful death -

I totally agree, change is good. History teaches us that the best kind of change happens through consideration, not conflict. So if we can put aside the electioneering for a tic, I would urge all PAB candidates to read the PAB rules (if they haven't already). Look at the role of the PAB, it gives an insight into what it is and isn't.

For instance, Nominet created the PAB, it's an extension of their communications' process. Experience teaches that the surest way to get ignored by professional people is to make your mutual relationship untenable.

So I would ask you to consider that a revamp 'Gordon Ramsey style' would kill the PAB stone dead, and I can't see how it would be in Acorn Domains' or any other stakeholder group's interests, to destroy a direct line of communication into Nominet's Board.

I think you may also be forgetting the 8 appointed members on the PAB from the House of Lords to the BERR and the CBI to the FSB. The arena is a tad more complex than Gordon Ramsey's style. I wish it wasn't but you can't unfry an egg.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Mark my word if Nominet continually ignore the fact that they sell dodgy names and dont consider recommendations like my recommendations then they should be hit hard in the courts....no company has ever got away with KNOWINGLY selling unlawful products and deriving a financial benefit...salaries indeed

It isn't Nominet that creates the domain names, it's the registrant, at the time of registration. As I pointed out previously, even ICANN state that it's the registrant's responsibility to ensure they don't infringe anyone else's rights.

I don't make this up as I go along Lee, I just offer it up as a matter of record.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[landlord]

Icann

Who said ICANN are right...who said the registrant is not liable (not me)... but Nominet are knowingly deriving a benefit (registration fee to pay salaries) on names that they know are more likely than not instruments of unlawful acts...to take no steps to deal with this is poor show from any business...

Lee

 

[sneezycheese]

PAB Mantra Number 1 - To Listen More Carefully!

So I would ask you to consider that a revamp 'Gordon Ramsey style' would kill the PAB stone dead, and I can't see how it would be in Acorn Domains' or any other stakeholder group's interests, to destroy a direct line of communication into Nominet's Board.

...ahh - me thinks you're trying to twist and misrepresent what I'm saying - my intensions I can asure you are honerable and I have no desire to "destroy" anything - quite the opposite in fact.

Gordon Ramsey so often at the start of his processes for change and improvement for those that he is trying to help more often than not react defensively to his ideas, only to find themselves at the end of that process thanking him for showing them the light and giving him a great big hug.

Maybe one day I'll be in a position to dish out some of those hugs! :mrgreen:

Regards,

Sneezy.