DRS double jeopardy??

bb99 · 13-01-2009, 07:50:14 PM

Mildly interesting DRS related article in today's Telegraph...

As DRS gurus will know, the same party can't DRS another party over the same domain name twice. Here's what the good policy says:

Quote:

e. If a complaint has reached the Decision stage on a previous occasion it will not be reconsidered (but it may be appealed, see paragraph 10(a) and Procedure paragraph 1

by an Expert. If the Expert finds that the complaint is a resubmission of an earlier complaint he or she shall reject the complaint without examining it.

And yet here we have two DRSs.

The first DRS was in 2005 and is here.

It looks like that DRS mostly fell down because the complainant ("Framlingham College Enterprises Limited") did not adequately prove rights in the name. Oops

Then in December 2008 we have another DRS on the same name. This time the complainant is "Framlingham College". Here it is. In this case, the complaint was successful.

For the purposes of this rambling post, I will assume that the two complainants are the same. Is that a fair assumption? Well probably. If not, they are surely share the same ultimate control and should be treated as the same.

So in what circumstances can an expert allow a 2nd DRS? The policy says:

Quote:

f. In determining whether a complaint is a resubmission of an earlier complaint, or contains a material difference that justifies a re-hearing the Expert shall consider the following questions:

i. Are the Complainant, the Respondent and the domain name in issue the same as in the earlier case?
ii. Does the substance of the complaint relate to acts that occurred prior to or subsequent to the close of submissions in the earlier case?
iii. If the substance of the complaint relates to acts that occurred prior to the close of submissions in the earlier case, are there any exceptional grounds for the rehearing or reconsideration, bearing in mind the need to protect the integrity and smooth operation of the Policy and Procedure?
iv. If the substance of the complaint relates to acts that occurred subsequent to the close of submissions in the earlier decision, acts on which the re-filed complaint is based should not be, in substance, the same as the acts on which the previous complaint was based.

g. A non-exhaustive list of examples which may be exceptional enough to justify a re-hearing under paragraph 10(f)(iii) include:

i. serious misconduct on the part of the Expert, a Party, witness or lawyer;
ii. false evidence having been offered to the Expert;
iii. the discovery of credible and material evidence which could not have been reasonably foreseen or known for the Complainant to have included it in the evidence in support of the earlier complaint;
iv. a breach of natural justice; and
v. the avoidance of an unconscionable result.

So it's interesting that the expert has allowed the second DRS without stating exactly why they have done so. Perhaps this was considered at length, but we have no idea of knowing so because the Summary documentation for the second DRS is silent on pretty much everything.

So my point is this: I'd like to see more detail in all of the Summary judgement documents.... What do you lot think?

devolution · 14-01-2009, 05:59:42 AM

TBH, this is kind of clear cut -- apart from any rules regarding subsequent cases...
If it had been 'framlingham.co.uk' then I don't think a DRS would have been able to get the name, but it's clear it was an abusive registration in the spirit of old John Zucchini...

bb99 · 14-01-2009, 07:22:39 AM

I agree, I think it does look very clearl cut and like the right decision was made in the end.

I'm just puzzled as to why the expert hasn't clarified why he's allowed the second DRS and in general I tihnk the summary decisions should be more detailed.

mofo · 14-01-2009, 09:04:03 AM

Something on the beeb re this case.

BBC NEWS | Technology | School's links to porn site end

14-01-2009, 05:59:42 AM	#2 (permalink)
devolution Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 758 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 6)	TBH, this is kind of clear cut -- apart from any rules regarding subsequent cases... If it had been 'framlingham.co.uk' then I don't think a DRS would have been able to get the name, but it's clear it was an abusive registration in the spirit of old John Zucchini... __________________ Champange.co.uk \| Music.co.ltd.uk \| Domains.co.ltd.uk \| Search.co.ltd.uk eGPS.co.uk - cheap GPS! \| MobileConnection.co.uk - bargain phones & FREE LAPTOPS!!

14-01-2009, 07:22:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
bb99 Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,506 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 1)	I agree, I think it does look very clearl cut and like the right decision was made in the end. I'm just puzzled as to why the expert hasn't clarified why he's allowed the second DRS and in general I tihnk the summary decisions should be more detailed. __________________ Droppr - finely tuned .uk dropcatching for Nominet members Gazebos \| Flyers, Postcards \| Tree Surveys \| Dent Repairs Leeds \| Poster Printing

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Domain Name Community	Replies	Last Post
Fasthosts Provides Double Web Presence with Buy One, Get One Free ... - WebWire (pres	RSS	Domain Name News	0	18-08-2008 02:59:06 PM
Midas: Hyder aims to double its margins - This is Money	RSS	Domain Name News	0	10-06-2007 04:59:12 PM
The double UK	jacal1	Domain Research	4	09-04-2007 07:05:24 AM
.IN registrations double this year - Business Standard	RSS	Domain Name News	0	20-11-2006 08:59:11 PM

14-01-2009, 09:04:03 AM	#4 (permalink)
mofo Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 197 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 11)	Something on the beeb re this case. BBC NEWS \| Technology \| School's links to porn site end