Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EdPhillips The DRS is designed to be quick, cheap and easy. |
How about the DRS being designed to be fair and equitable?
I haven't got any specific examples but I read about 15 DRS cases about 2 weeks ago and in at least 5 or 6 of them I felt that the complainants cases were weak, failed to prove each of the required elements, or just appeared to be a case of the complainant trying to swipe a domain after the fact.
I'm not saying that the respondents were all whiter than white but reading the DRS I get the distinct impression that the 'experts' lean towards the side of the complainant and almost trying to guide their interpretations of the complaint towards a result in their favour. ie if a point the complainant makes is vague the expert will tend to reinterpret it as a plus point for the complainant.
I'm not suggesting this happens, but it's as though the expert sees the respondent as a guilty cyber squatter and then spins the complaint about until it proves the case. It would be nice to see a few cases where the respondent was as guilty as hell but the expert decided that the complaint didn't deliver a case that proved guilt.
I've got a great deal of respect for the legal bods at Nomient but I'm not sure the DRS results come across in the right way.