Richard Stephens
Consolidation and Changes to the Dispute Resolution Service Policy & Procedure Closing deadline: 5pm on Thursday 24 March 2016. We are seeking feedback on proposed changes to the Policy and Procedure documents that govern our Dispute Resolution Service. The Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) is Nominet’s mediation based process for resolving disputes between parties over the registration or use of .UK domain names. The DRS aims to provide a clear, quick and cost-effective process outside of the formal court system which facilitates an amicable resolution between the parties where possible, and which is accessible and fair to both those complaining and domain name registrants. The process is currently described in two separate documents called the Policy and the Procedure, which were last reviewed and updated in 2008. Scope of the current review. We believe that the DRS is continuing to be successful in meeting these core aims. In addition, the DRS enjoys a significant level of support amongst our stakeholders in the domain name industry, government and the intellectual property community. We have therefore not sought to undertake a fundamental review of our DRS policy but have instead looked to identify any areas where our Policy and Procedure were not as clear or up-to-date as they could be. The proposed changes are intended to address these issues by consolidating the current separate policy and procedure documents into a new single policy document. All changes proposed to the text are clearly identified in the supporting documents and include: • General updating to reflect the removal of fax numbers, availability of registrations directly at the second level within .UK; • Removal of the option to file hard copy documents with us; • Ability of Nominet to reject complaints which appear to be vexatious; and • Keeping the fees separate from the policy text.
YOUR FEEDBACK We would welcome your views on our new proposed Dispute Resolution Service Policy (DRS Policy) Good idea - and love the numbering in place of the old way of listing things. Some comments: 4.3.2 - how is this going to be enforced? the way it is phrased ("supporting arguments") invites further argument, it should say it is purely for the purpose os submitting evidence to support the arguments in the 5000 words. 5.1.5 - the normal situation I have seen is that the Complainant has the Rights, the Respondent is often someone e.g. a director or IT engineer who registers the Domain Name and pays for it himself. That person then leaves the company and claims the Domain Name as his own. Technically, this common situation falls outside the Policy. Perhaps we need a case to allow for this? 5.1.6 - what if the Complainant's Rights have no reputation? It may be that the Complainant has a trade mark which has not been used yet - this would still be Rights, why is there a further need to show reputation? Generally - I can't see anything to do with delay on the Complainant's part in bringing a complaint: should this be dealt with expressly? it is not uncommon. 18.1 - I wonder whether this does not rather imply that an Expert will in fact normally perform background research. Would it not be better expressed to say that an Expert "will not in the ordinary course" make any checks but may do so at their complete discretion.
Please tell us if you agree to the publication of your response by selecting one of the options below. Anonymous responses will not be published although they will be taken into account. Yes I am happy for Nominet to publish my response, along with my name and organisation
YOUR FEEDBACK We would welcome your views on our new proposed Dispute Resolution Service Policy (DRS Policy) Good idea - and love the numbering in place of the old way of listing things. Some comments: 4.3.2 - how is this going to be enforced? the way it is phrased ("supporting arguments") invites further argument, it should say it is purely for the purpose os submitting evidence to support the arguments in the 5000 words. 5.1.5 - the normal situation I have seen is that the Complainant has the Rights, the Respondent is often someone e.g. a director or IT engineer who registers the Domain Name and pays for it himself. That person then leaves the company and claims the Domain Name as his own. Technically, this common situation falls outside the Policy. Perhaps we need a case to allow for this? 5.1.6 - what if the Complainant's Rights have no reputation? It may be that the Complainant has a trade mark which has not been used yet - this would still be Rights, why is there a further need to show reputation? Generally - I can't see anything to do with delay on the Complainant's part in bringing a complaint: should this be dealt with expressly? it is not uncommon. 18.1 - I wonder whether this does not rather imply that an Expert will in fact normally perform background research. Would it not be better expressed to say that an Expert "will not in the ordinary course" make any checks but may do so at their complete discretion.
Please tell us if you agree to the publication of your response by selecting one of the options below. Anonymous responses will not be published although they will be taken into account. Yes I am happy for Nominet to publish my response, along with my name and organisation
