Waste of time and money

I had exactly the same on dickerson.co.uk :)
 
He didn't think this through!

1. No chance of winning this DRS - one of the most stupid yet.
2. Now when you Google his name this story comes up. Not great if applying for jobs etc!

Like you say, just a big waste of time.

BTW, I've just wasted 58 seconds writing this!
 
Complaint written by AI? Seeing this more.
 
Kaleido said:
He's also dropped his surname from his LinkedIn profile as of today.
Click to expand...

Lol, what a fix. You're having problems with blogs ranking for your name, so you remove the only legitimate page that was ranking. Might as well make room on Google page 1 for one more site calling you an idiot!
 
The Expert also notes that the Respondent has been put to unnecessary time, effort, and expense in investigating the allegations, preparing a Response, participating in mediation, and defending a meritless Complaint.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what can be done about this? We've spent countless hours discussing then putting together replies to some complaints that had no real chance of succeeding.

Maybe the person filing the DRS should pay an extra £500 deposit, win and you get it back. Lose and it goes to the guys time you just wasted.
 
You lot won't be laughing when Keiran's complaint to IANA about St Kitts and Nevis having the country code .kn is upheld.

Looking at the DRS itself, I see that @atlas paid for the decision, something that @FOZ has also done in several of his cases.

It's their money of course, but is domaining still so lucrative that it's worth a respondent paying £900 just for the satisfaction of embarrassing an idiot complainant?

Or am I missing something here?
 
If the owner is someone with a public facing website, I would seriously considering putting that £900 in my seo budget and forcing a decision.

Its going to get some attention and if you're willing to give quotes and whatnot its free links, if you want/need them.
 
@Cav can you change the title of your post to "waste of time and money - Keiran Nimmo, Keirtech"
 
Jeff said:
You lot won't be laughing when Keiran's complaint to IANA about St Kitts and Nevis having the country code .kn is upheld.

Looking at the DRS itself, I see that @atlas paid for the decision, something that @FOZ has also done in several of his cases.

It's their money of course, but is domaining still so lucrative that it's worth a respondent paying £900 just for the satisfaction of embarrassing an idiot complainant?

Or am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
When you've spent £2K on a response better to go all in and come away with positive wording for future cases.
 
Well done Jeff. Enjoyed reading that DRS decision this morning :-)
 
What's the best way to stop these entirely frivolous claims? Can you?

It would be super unfair if everyone had to start lodging deposits just to make it harder for the total loser complaints.

I know Nominet don't care about us so nothing will change on this front. But I reckon there should definitely be some sort of penalties. Perhaps just agreeing in the original DRS terms that if you do something like you'll owe the other side £1k... then they can choose to try and enforce it or not?

I think we must have wasted 20+ hours between us on defending a pointless DRS, then defending an equally pointless appeal prob took another 50. Super unfair that that time/effort is all just gone for nothing. We could have got on with some work or all took a long weekend lol.

In our specific case there was some complete outright lies in the complaints that had to be carefully responded to. Just seems super unfair that we get all that work load based off someones lies, and too bad all that time is lost.
 
The system is still stacked in favour of frivolous claims. The Nominet expert fee has been fixed at £750 + VAT since it was introduced in 2001 and if it was increased in line with rpi it would be £1767 (according to my ai search). Now in this case the lower fee has, at least enabled the respondent to get a RDNH recorded in writing. But respondents shouldn't be paying the same fee to take the complaint to an expert decision. That seems grossly unfair. So I think the expert decision fee for complainants should be at least £1500 + VAT just to take account for inflation, and if respondents feel strongly enough that they want to take it to expert decision that fee shouldn't be any more than £250 + VAT. Nominet have a duty to cut out these frivolous claims and redressing the balance like this would help. They would be getting a lot more in fees from complainants and be able to afford the £250 fee for respondents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cav
It's hard to balance. I don't love price rises as Nominet certainly don't need the money, and it potentially creates unfair situations where the most blatant abuse situations can't be followed up as you don't have £1500 to spend on it. But perhaps selfishly, higher prices would have potentially stopped us having to defend a couple of nonsense complaints in the first place.

I wouldn't have a problem with the respondent themselves being responsible for the fees in blatant abuse cases. But I can't see how that could possibly work practically. You can't expect respondents to put up cash deposits to defend claims that might themselves be utter nonsense. ut how would you ever enforce your money owed if in different countries etc.

I've been DRS'd in the past when I've scraped someone elses content back, the DRS case is is blatant as could possibly be and I could never win it. If I'm being realistic about things, I should probably be paying that fee, not the guy whos website I "borrowed"
 
Last edited:
Nigel said:
The system is still stacked in favour of frivolous claims. The Nominet expert fee has been fixed at £750 + VAT since it was introduced in 2001 and if it was increased in line with rpi it would be £1767 (according to my ai search). Now in this case the lower fee has, at least enabled the respondent to get a RDNH recorded in writing. But respondents shouldn't be paying the same fee to take the complaint to an expert decision. That seems grossly unfair. So I think the expert decision fee for complainants should be at least £1500 + VAT just to take account for inflation, and if respondents feel strongly enough that they want to take it to expert decision that fee shouldn't be any more than £250 + VAT. Nominet have a duty to cut out these frivolous claims and redressing the balance like this would help. They would be getting a lot more in fees from complainants and be able to afford the £250 fee for respondents.
Click to expand...
Agree the full decision should be higher as its not really worth the experts time to adjudicate. Nominet don't get the fee. The expert does. I'd favour Canada's dispute process where the expert can awards costs when RDNH is found.
 
FOZ said:
Agree the full decision should be higher as its not really worth the experts time to adjudicate. Nominet don't get the fee. The expert does. I'd favour Canada's dispute process where the expert can awards costs when RDNH is found.
Click to expand...
That Canadian system sounds like the way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top