The PAB's mandate.

[Jac]

...and if the current PAB does nothing?

The sanction is to vote them off one by one. A candidate wishing to be elected on this issue simply needs to publish a manifesto declaring the present DRS process faulty and in need of a revamp. Then we will see from the voting just how much of an issue DRS Decisions are to the electorate. Some on the PAB need removing generally due to their overly compliant attitudes.

I agree with you. If people do nothing they should be voted off whatever committee or board they sit on; so you are right; the sanction is indeed to vote them off one by one. That said; if you think I am "overly compliant", I think you are misunderstanding the role of the PAB and how far one individual can push the agenda. You may also be ignoring an individual's right to his own opinion which "Beasty" acknowledged in a recent post (and I thank him for it). But I am not writing this to start another argument, I am writing it to clarify what the PAB is about and what its mandate is. Most of it is encapsulated here.

There are 16 PAB Member, 8 of whom are appointed by Nominet (i.e. not elected) from such agencies as the Cabinet Office, the House of Lords, the DTI, the CBI, Trademark Attorneys Institute etc. etc. There are also 2 nominated PAB posts filled by the board; this ensures there are board members present at PAB meetings to give any required feedback or clarification from Nominet's viewpoint.

So if you elect 1 or 2 or even all 8 Members of your choice, you still have 8 appointed Members to convince and they may all feel differently about the issues at hand. The point I keep making on this forum is this. The PAB is about consensus and just as Nominet is mandated to respond to the needs of all stakeholders (not just a sub-set) the PAB; as a representative body; has to respond to what it believes is 'the majority need' within the wider stakeholder communities.

I know of nobody on the PAB, elected or appointed, who is "overly compliant" and I know of nobody who thinks their responsibility is to protect Nominet per se. I do know of 16 elected and appointed members who think their job is to passionately discuss the issues from a wider stakeholder perspective and try to arrive at a consensus that will satisfy the majority need; but it is a fact that a person or group who feels deprived of something (anything) will rarely feel satisfied. You only have to consider how badly Conservative supporters feel when Labour keeps winning general elections and then consider how good they would feel if and when they depose Labour at the next one.

No matter what you do as an individual or collective body, you will never satisfy all of the people all of the time, and someone somewhere will always feel aggrieved or take umbrage with one or other people as you do with me.

If Nominet (and the PAB) were to accommodate every single request made by dropcatchers and domainers, there might never be a complaint on Acorn Domains; but there probably would be from the rest of the stakeholder communities. Finding a common ground/consensus is never easy; if it was, all the issues being addressed on Acorn Domains would have been solved already.

That said, the PAB is not doing nothing, it is pushing the DRS agenda as fast as it can but it has to work within the current process which, as an aside, the PAB (and Nominet) is trying to speed up too. If the PAB wasn't trying to do all of these things already, I'd have no hesitation in saying it is not doing its job; but it is doing what it can within the confines of its own constitution.

So let's have it. What does Acorn Domains think the PAB should be doing that it isn't; within its constitution; because it cannot act outside the rules that bind it.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[sneezycheese]

So let's have it. What does Acorn Domains think the PAB should be doing that it isn't; within its constitution; because it cannot act outside the rules that bind it.

...This is a simple question to answer, and it's about ensuring a fair and level playing field in the DRS and the PAB should make this it's first priority:

1. The DRS is an administrative function that is undoubtedly the most expensive to administer on a case by case basis. Currently complainants have a very large slice of that process given to them FREE OF CHARGE - Why should this be so? - Fix it! Why should complainants be the ONLY ones to get a free ride? Where's the customer commitment in this process?

2. Make the DRS simple, as it was intended to be and NOT open to 'expert’s opinion' - it should almost be a tick box operation - i.e. a sellection of well defined tests - this will ensure consistency in results.

3. Make the whole thing accountable on a case by case basis - i.e. if there's a cock up - acknowledge it and fix it!

4. Make the contract 'consumer compliant' - Best to set your benchmark higher rather than lower, which I know from speaking to Ed Nominet likes to keep lower - Nice attitude.

5. Sort out this appalling appeal fee - again this could be structured so that a respondant could have the chance to pay £750+VAT which would be the same as the complainant has already. Whilst a complainant would pay a higher fee based on the fact they've as-it-were - already had one bite at the cheery.

None of what I've said above should cause any problems as I've not given any opinion on the boundary settings for the DRS. The tests could in fact be quite strict - but at least EVERYBODY would know what the rules actually are and act accordingly.

As I've said countless times before - SIMPLICITY is the key!!!

SO off ye go - GET YE A FIXIN :mrgreen:

 

[Hazel Pegg]

SO off ye go - GET YE A FIXIN

A DRS Review is currently underway. It is almost certain to arrive at the PAB table at the November meeting. I have asked about the public consultation and been told that the PAB's input will be a part of the open public consultation. I am therefore assuming that sometime in November Nominet will be asking for the views of all stakeholders as to how to change/improve the DRS. I realise that this isn't as fast as everyone would like it to be but, as has been pointed out, the PAB (and Nominet) are constrained by their own rules. Would you really like it if things could be changed at a moment's notice?

The DRS forms a part of the contractual agreement between Nominet and the Registrant. Obviously it is not something that anyone would want to see the rules of being changed on a monthly basis. Currently it is reviewed every three years. Maybe that is too long a gap between reviews. I'm not sure. But I am sure that the current review is in process and that input from yourself and others will be asked for before too long.

My personal view (NOTE personal view and NOT the PAB's view) is that Nominet should retain the DRS as an informal mediation service and, should no agreement be reached, then step aside and leave the parties concerned to go to the courts. But do note that this could be a more expensive and less predictable route than what is currently in place.

Hazel - speaking personally

 

[sneezycheese]

My personal view (NOTE personal view and NOT the PAB's view) is that Nominet should retain the DRS as an informal mediation service and, should no agreement be reached, then step aside and leave the parties concerned to go to the courts. But do note that this could be a more expensive and less predictable route than what is currently in place.

...This is not a bad idea, keeping it not only simple but just using the part of the DRS that (from what I'm to understand) works well in over 50% of cases.

This would also release the burden on all sides of producing, providing and shifting all that documentation at the start of a DRS.

Probably not to everyones liking, but a nice and simple idea.

In mind mediation should be the first step in any case, negating all that adversarial effort and papperwork up front. Just think - 50% of DRS's settled before the paperwork stage, lubly jubly!

 

[Jac]

...This is a simple question to answer, and it's about ensuring a fair and level playing field in the DRS and the PAB should make this it's first priority:

1. The DRS is an administrative function that is undoubtedly the most expensive to administer on a case by case basis. Currently complainants have a very large slice of that process given to them FREE OF CHARGE - Why should this be so? - Fix it! Why should complainants be the ONLY ones to get a free ride? Where's the customer commitment in this process?

2. Make the DRS simple, as it was intended to be and NOT open to 'expert’s opinion' - it should almost be a tick box operation - i.e. a sellection of well defined tests - this will ensure consistency in results.

3. Make the whole thing accountable on a case by case basis - i.e. if there's a cock up - acknowledge it and fix it!

4. Make the contract 'consumer compliant' - Best to set your benchmark higher rather than lower, which I know from speaking to Ed Nominet likes to keep lower - Nice attitude.

5. Sort out this appalling appeal fee - again this could be structured so that a respondant could have the chance to pay £750+VAT which would be the same as the complainant has already. Whilst a complainant would pay a higher fee based on the fact they've as-it-were - already had one bite at the cheery.

None of what I've said above should cause any problems as I've not given any opinion on the boundary settings for the DRS. The tests could in fact be quite strict - but at least EVERYBODY would know what the rules actually are and act accordingly.

As I've said countless times before - SIMPLICITY is the key!!!

SO off ye go - GET YE A FIXIN :mrgreen:

Sorry sneezy ... I can resist everything but temptation ... so ...

.... do you want the PAB to do all this before or after your own problem with virgintv.co.uk? :mrgreen:

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[sneezycheese]

Sorry sneezy ... I can resist everything but temptation ... so ...

.... do you want the PAB to do all this before or after your own problem with virgintv.co.uk? :mrgreen:

Regards
James Conaghan

...As I said - PAB/Nominet action ASAP please - no need to wait on my behalf.

It's a real shame I cannot comment further on the latter - but hey, maybe one day Jac...

 

[grandin]

Respect

I must say I have respect for Hazel. Hazel will not try and defend what cannot be defended. Hazel will make valuable remarks that will bring others defenses down.

Jac...to me you are looking at yourself and not the wider picture......Acorn members are the most experienced of domain owners....AND WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DRS...get a grip

I just wonder whether we are holding out for the judge to decide whether a domain name can be property....this is crucial cause it would not be upto Nominet to decide abuse of a contract cause there wouldn't be a contract as such....we would own it as property and we would be sued for infringement if that was applicable...I do not understand the law but this seems a reasonable assumption...it would take control away from Nominet

Lee

 

[Beasty]

A DRS Review is currently underway. It is almost certain to arrive at the PAB table at the November meeting. I have asked about the public consultation and been told that the PAB's input will be a part of the open public consultation. I am therefore assuming that sometime in November Nominet will be asking for the views of all stakeholders as to how to change/improve the DRS. I realise that this isn't as fast as everyone would like it to be but, as has been pointed out, the PAB (and Nominet) are constrained by their own rules. Would you really like it if things could be changed at a moment's notice?

The DRS forms a part of the contractual agreement between Nominet and the Registrant. Obviously it is not something that anyone would want to see the rules of being changed on a monthly basis. Currently it is reviewed every three years. Maybe that is too long a gap between reviews. I'm not sure. But I am sure that the current review is in process and that input from yourself and others will be asked for before too long.

My personal view (NOTE personal view and NOT the PAB's view) is that Nominet should retain the DRS as an informal mediation service and, should no agreement be reached, then step aside and leave the parties concerned to go to the courts. But do note that this could be a more expensive and less predictable route than what is currently in place.

Hazel - speaking personally

I can think of all sorts of reasons to agree with you Hazel - and off the top of my head none to disagree with you!

Beasty - also speaking personally

 

[Beasty]

Oops!

Sorry - a duplicate post praising Hazel - my mistake!

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Probably not to everyones liking, but a nice and simple idea.

KISS

Hazel

 

[sneezycheese]

KISS

Hazel

...Stop Hazel - you'll get me all embarrassed!

 

[Hazel Pegg]

...Stop Hazel - you'll get me all embarrassed!

Keep It Simple Stupid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_Principle

Hazel

 

[sneezycheese]

Keep It Simple Stupid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_Principle

Hazel

...I understood, but I thought I was being funny - sorry. :mrgreen:

Note to self - humour not one of my better traits.

 

[grandin]

Agree

Hazel wrote 'My personal view (NOTE personal view and NOT the PAB's view) is that Nominet should retain the DRS as an informal mediation service and, should no agreement be reached, then step aside and leave the parties concerned to go to the courts. But do note that this could be a more expensive and less predictable route than what is currently in place.'

I write: It was always my view that Nominet's loyalty should be with its customer. IF the CUSTOMER did not want to be bound by a DRS decision then he should not have to be. Clearly to ignore a decision maybe detrimental IF court action was to follow BUT contentious cases would be resolved where they should be.

Currently on the basis of an overturned Appeal in favour of the Respondent you would have been better off if Court action was taken....you would have been awarded costs. I don't understand why the fee structure in the DRS doesn't follow the courts....to have the loser pay the fees seems to be the most logical....its been tried and tested to be fair for years......

The DRS was designed to be cheaper than the courts BUT why did they add in fees paid by winners.

Lee

Lee

 

[Hazel Pegg]

...I understood, but I thought I was being funny - sorry. :mrgreen:

Note to self - humour not one of my better traits.

That should probably read "humour not one of Hazel's better traits". You guys have got me so paranoid about opening my mouth (or tapping the keyboard) that I'm qualifying and clarifying everthing.

Then again, it might have been that glass of red I drank to wash down the tramadol and diazepam

Whatever, sorry for being a miserable old bat and no hard feelings?

Hazel

 

[Hazel Pegg]

The DRS was designed to be cheaper than the courts BUT why did they add in fees paid by winners.

The 'fees' issue is one aspect of the current DRS that I'm expecting to change once the current review is completed. Nominet operates on a cost-recovery basis and doesn't itself make any money out of the DRS. Experts have to be paid so the money has to come from somewhere. If the 'winner' in a DRS is to have their fees refunded then the money has to come from somewhere. So come up with a sensible suggestion as to how the service can be funded without 'winners' paying 3K to retain their domain name and throw it into the pot when the DRS Review goes out to public consultation. I've been thinking about this one for a few months now and have some ideas but, as yet, haven't come up with an answer that doesn't carry a different set of problems along with it.

Hazel

 

[grandin]

I have been thinking about this too

Yes Hazel, A tricky one but the best one would be this:-

You have stats given the number of cases brought to the DRS. You can provide a good projection (drs cases are likely to increase with a sharp curve upwards).

The complainant is not the customer therefore he should always pay the complaint fee (no change here). The benefit to the complainant is its cheaper than the courts.

Appeal

If the customer feels he wants to Appeal (which is likely given what I propose below) then the complaint will move to Appeal (Appeal will be the same as now in respect to the number of experts on the panel but the fee is a little different as detailed below)

If the Complainant loses the appeal he will be contracted to reimburse Nominet for out of pocket expenses ie. £3000

If the customer loses the appeal fee its recovered by INCREASED RENEWAL FEES...increase renewal fees now accross the board

The benefits:- Alot more opinions will be given by so called 'experts' and therefore everyone can thrash out a policy that bloody works.

Complainants are less likely to 'try their luck'

Reword the first decision to be similar to the Patent Office ie. 'Preliminary Indication'....both parties can pull out/give up if they so wish. The prelimnary indication could also give a resolution ie....if the domain name owner stops using ppc and gives an undertaken to set up a legitimate website within 90 days then the domain name owner should keep the name.

Disadvantage:- Will take long time, customers are likely to appeal. Increase in renewal fees

Lee

 

[Jac]

...As I said - PAB/Nominet action ASAP please - no need to wait on my behalf.

It's a real shame I cannot comment further on the latter - but hey, maybe one day Jac...

Nice to see you can still retain your sense of humour sneezy!

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Jac...to me you are looking at yourself and not the wider picture......

And you are talking yak manure as usual. You arrogantly assume you know what I am thinking when you don't even seem to know what YOU are thinking... because I sure as hell don't know what chickens and washing machines have to do with any of these issues.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[aqls]

No. We don't want increased renewal fees thank you.

-aqls-