bb99

sneezycheese - now you've said that, I remember your exact (unedited) post and I remember looking at the domain name involved (and the complainant's).

Difficult to say more until the DRS is published on the Nominet site. Presumably it'll be within the next few days...

__________________
Droppr - finely tuned .uk dropcatching for Nominet members
Gazebo | Flyers, Postcards | Tree Surveys | Dent Repairs Leeds | Poster Printing

retired_member11

When is the next consultation due?

EdPhillips

We last updated the DRS in 2004, so I am looking at doing the next update in 2007. Given the lead time on these things, I hope to get the consultation done this year sometime.

We have had a lot of input from dropcatchers, one way and another, and of course it has been an eventful year or two for the DRS, both in terms of volumes (which are going up) and in terms of the attention given to specific cases.

I should be able to spend more time developing this after the EGM is over.

sneezycheese

I’ve found some more ‘contradictions’:

“As such I find that the Complainant has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent registered the Domain Name primarily with a view to block the Complainant in breach of paragraph 3(a)(i)(B). I therefore reject this part of the Complainant’s claim.”

Then:

“… on the balance of probabilities I find that the Complainant has proven their claim under paragraph 3(a)(i)(B) of the Policy.”


I’m not going to say what I’m thinking right now.

retired_member9

yea.. looks like expert was on opiates

retired_member11

Did this dispute finally resolve? What was the domain name?

retired_member11

Is it a secret?