Question for Nominet

[domaingenius]

I would be interested to know from Nominet why their DRS system ignores the well established regime of Without Prejudice communications ,and why it does not think that counter productive to solving matters ,rather than what it actually does to prolong things and force people into DRS or litigation ?

DG

 

[rob]

Nom probably read these boards but apart from techie replies from Jay dont bother responding any more due to every letter of their posts being 'reinterpreted'... thus could be worth banging off an email to support@nom or od / lesley@ or post on nom-steer etc if a member .

wanders back to barbie...hic

 

[domaingenius]

Nom probably read these boards but apart from techie replies from Jay dont bother responding any more due to every letter of their posts being 'reinterpreted'... thus could be worth banging off an email to support@nom or od / lesley@ or post on nom-steer etc if a member .

wanders back to barbie...hic

Thanks ,yep will try that and see what happens and post replies.

DG

 

[Jay Daley]

I would be interested to know from Nominet why their DRS system ignores the well established regime of Without Prejudice communications ,and why it does not think that counter productive to solving matters ,rather than what it actually does to prolong things and force people into DRS or litigation ?

DG

Everything that happens in mediation is secret. This is clearly stated here

Dispute Resolution Service

Is that what you meant?

PS Ed has stopped posting because his assistant solicitor has left for another job and he is too busy to find time to post. Not because of anything that has been said.

 

[Jay Daley]

I should point out that over 60% of disputes are settled in mediation. This makes our DRS one of the most successful mediation services in the UK.

 

[olebean]

I should point out that over 60% of disputes are settled in mediation. This makes our DRS one of the most successful mediation services in the UK.

Jay

Who have nominet compared the mediation part of the service with?


Regards


OB

 

[domaingenius]

I should point out that over 60% of disputes are settled in mediation. This makes our DRS one of the most successful mediation services in the UK.

But Jay this begs the very real question, does Nominet deliberately ignore the status of "Without Prejudice" communications so as to effectively force the complainant to go to DRS because the respondent (domain registrant) cannot dare speak to them ?. I really do think that this needs to be looked at as it is grossly unfair to effectively gag a party and force them by that into being a respondent to a DRS.

Comments ?.

DG

 

[Jay Daley]

Who have nominet compared the mediation part of the service with?

If I remember rightly the comparison was done through CEDR and was with all other commercial litigation providers who are registered (if that is the right term) with CEDR.

 

[Jay Daley]

But Jay this begs the very real question, does Nominet deliberately ignore the status of "Without Prejudice" communications so as to effectively force the complainant to go to DRS because the respondent (domain registrant) cannot dare speak to them ?. I really do think that this needs to be looked at as it is grossly unfair to effectively gag a party and force them by that into being a respondent to a DRS.

I think I see what you mean - 'without prejudice' before the DRS case takes place? I don't know the answer - I will ask.

 

[olebean]

If I remember rightly the comparison was done through CEDR and was with all other commercial litigation providers who are registered (if that is the right term) with CEDR.

Runner up????

 

[domaingenius]

I think I see what you mean - 'without prejudice' before the DRS case takes place? I don't know the answer - I will ask.

Thanks Jay. Look, forgetting DRS/Nominet/Domains for now, on many many occasions I have spoken with parties with letters marked "without prejudice". It allows the parties to try and resolve matters before they have no alternative but to seek a remedy elsewhere, i.e. Court [DRS]. Now I am sure your Chairman will no this fact only too well , and shame on him for allowing Nominet to try and take the historical status away as if it did not exist. The consequence is that if someone comes and says "I want that domain as it is my right to have it" . I cannot write back and say "Without prejudice you may have it for £1000" without severely jeopardising my position in DRS. That means he then goes to Nominet and issues a DRS ,thus causing more work for everyone and allowing Nominet to charge a DRS fee [which is where commonsense should say "oh yes we are a domain registry not a legal firm, let us make the DRS work for us by retaining the status of Without Prejudice and bar those from being known about or considered by the Adjudicator"] He could NOT go to Court and refer to that letter in evidence against me so why should he be able to in DRS ?.

Thanks
DG

 

[retired_member12]

It is because Nominet is NOT a Court. When you sign up to their T&C's, you are on Nominet's terms. They are (in the case of a DRS) one of (usually) four parties involved; you, the other claimant, and the registering body (Nominet) and the ISP/TAG Holder. The ISP plays a very small role, but is a facilitator only.
There are however, ways around this problem. You need to understand other legal duties upon all parties concerned. At some time in the future, i will give you some examples using the law to protect your interests.
It's simple when you know how.

 

[domaingenius]

It is because Nominet is NOT a Court. When you sign up to their T&C's, you are on Nominet's terms. They are (in the case of a DRS) one of (usually) four parties involved; you, the other claimant, and the registering body (Nominet) and the ISP/TAG Holder. The ISP plays a very small role, but is a facilitator only.
There are however, ways around this problem. You need to understand other legal duties upon all parties concerned. At some time in the future, i will give you some examples using the law to protect your interests.
It's simple when you know how.

1. Yes I know Nominet is not a Court, but was using it as a reference point.
2. Nominet may only be a facilitator, but they have the power to make the
changes to DRS if they wished. Simple change, do not allow without
prejudice letters into the process at all.
3. You say ""There are however,ways around this problem" Why until
"at some time in the future" , please tell us now so we can use it.

DG

 

[ELIFE-MZ]

I think this was changed in early 2004. See link below, section 2.2.1

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/3030_DrsProposalsFeb.pdf

One of the main reasons was, who would be responsible for removing all the without prejudice documentation before it reached the expert. I guess the simple answer should be that it shouldn't be in there in the first place.

 

[olebean]

1. Yes I know Nominet is not a Court, but was using it as a reference point.
2. Nominet may only be a facilitator, but they have the power to make the
changes to DRS if they wished. Simple change, do not allow without
prejudice letters into the process at all.
3. You say ""There are however,ways around this problem" Why until
"at some time in the future" , please tell us now so we can use it.

DG

This is roughly what someone wrote about change in the DRS..

When the DRS/UDRP was set up some were not involved in it....... I am not keen to extend further involvement...

 

[Beasty]

Without Prejudice is not protected from disclosure under the DRS. Under the old DRS it was not specifically covered - but an Appeal panel in Scooby Doo decided that generally it should not apply. The reasons were to prevent cybersquatters hiding behind it; that people should use the mediation phase; and that it is too complex for the cheap and simple DRS.

This was then enshrined into the rules at the last review.

Probably better if I don't tell you what I think of it! I'll save it for Ed and the DRS Review.

 

[domaingenius]

Hmm, well,got the usual brush off from Nominet and just referred me to the
review of 2004 which keeps referring "the experts" said this, the experts said that. Well F off the "experts" and get someone with some commonsense and see that Nominet are trying to be a halfway house "court". They seem to say that such DRS is to save costs, yet I see the "experts" were already voting up the fees. Look, when you have a solicitor/shyster involved then you think that they are going to be happy with £20 and hour ?.My reply ,for what its worth;
Dear Nominet

Thanks, but that shows me even more how much the DRS
rules stink. Nominet are trying to be a Court and then
not a Court. About time Nominet decided whether it
wants to replace Courts ,or be a Domain Registry ?.

And do you think the Courts ask the Judges what
rules and wages/fees that they want ?. Of course they dont.
This matter should go to a vote.

If there is one thing that irks me ,it is Nominet thinking that they know better than us ."Us" makes up Nominet so "us" should vote against these matters. I can say for 100% certainty that with the new chairman Nominet will be steered towards float on aim or something and they will want to shake of dead wood "members".Wait and see and I guarantee that there will be a creep, creep of new rules and amendments heading the way of more control for the few and less for us. Let us be resolute in ensuring that Nominet remains a kind of "co-operative" ,and that they out source DRS to someone like the Patent Offices new dispute system.

DG

 

[Jay Daley]

If there is one thing that irks me ,it is Nominet thinking that they know better than us ."Us" makes up Nominet so "us" should vote against these matters. I can say for 100% certainty that with the new chairman Nominet will be steered towards float on aim or something and they will want to shake of dead wood "members".Wait and see and I guarantee that there will be a creep, creep of new rules and amendments heading the way of more control for the few and less for us. Let us be resolute in ensuring that Nominet remains a kind of "co-operative" ,and that they out source DRS to someone like the Patent Offices new dispute system.

One thing I'm not so sure people realise is just how broad a church Nominet is. We have thousands of members with different points of view as well as millions of registrants and other interested parties that all need taking into account. This makes our policies (and changes to them) well discussed and consulted upon and that often takes quite a long time because of the range of people we need to speak to.

There are times when we don't explain how we got where we are well enough and this may well be one of them. But in our defense, that is generally because these are very involved and complex points that can only properly be answered by someone who knows the answers in real depth. This is of course why I keep away from some of the DRS stuff discussed because I don't know it well enough. Whereas of course for many of you, this is a key part of your livelihood and so are able to discuss this in real depth.

So, if our answers sometime comes across as us knowing better than you then I apologise, because of course they shouldn't. For us to find the time to engage at the level of detail and explanation needed on AD is tricky. Particularly as this has a degree of real-time interaction to it. This is of course something we would like to improve, but as I said we are a broad church and have a lot of ground to cover.

 

[Beasty]

One thing I'm not so sure people realise is just how broad a church Nominet is. We have thousands of members with different points of view as well as millions of registrants and other interested parties that all need taking into account. This makes our policies (and changes to them) well discussed and consulted upon and that often takes quite a long time because of the range of people we need to speak to.

There are times when we don't explain how we got where we are well enough and this may well be one of them. But in our defense, that is generally because these are very involved and complex points that can only properly be answered by someone who knows the answers in real depth. This is of course why I keep away from some of the DRS stuff discussed because I don't know it well enough. Whereas of course for many of you, this is a key part of your livelihood and so are able to discuss this in real depth.

So, if our answers sometime comes across as us knowing better than you then I apologise, because of course they shouldn't. For us to find the time to engage at the level of detail and explanation needed on AD is tricky. Particularly as this has a degree of real interaction to it. This is of course something we would like to improve, but as I said we are a broad church and have a lot of ground to cover.

I hate to disagree with you Jay, but I do not think Nominet is a very broad church.

Today - as opposed to 10 years ago when Nominet took over .uk - the UK internet is now a universally used national asset and our part of a universally used global asset.

Conversely, Nominet membership (and even more so Nominet voting) is dominated by vested interests of specific industries - in particular ISPs and web hosting companies. It is only those for whom it is commercially viable who pay the premium to become Nominet members - and so have a direct influence over .uk. Personally I can not justify paying £500 to join the club - I do not need the discounted registration fees that being a member tag holder brings. Should that prohibit me from taking part? I do not think so - but that "private members club" is where we are.

 

[Jay Daley]

I hate to disagree with you Jay, but I do not think Nominet is a very broad church.

If I were to try to find some middle ground between our views it would be to say that whilst Nominet is a broad church for business and governmental membership, you feel it could go much broader with individual membership?