sneezycheese

Please note: this information is also contained in another thread.

Having made a formal complaint to Nominet about the contradictions made in a DRS decision against me, they have now ‘amended’ the result, REMOVING (amongst others) the following very important quote by the expert:

“There is no evidence to show that the Respondent registered this Domain Name with prior knowledge of the Complainant’s business”

Saying that this is a “typographical error” and that “The removal of the offending phrase is for the purposes of clarity only and does not change the basis upon which the decision was made”.

This would seem to be one VERY BIG typo seeing that the decision against me was based on paragraph 3(a)(i)(C) of the ‘Policy’!

POLL: I wonder, can we trust the Nominet DRS anymore?

Nigel

I agree that this seems one HUGE typo and is a great cause for concern. Are you able to clarify an important point. Was it Nominet who changed the report or was the expert invited by Nominet to change his report?

domaingenius

Does anyone have the original decision with the parts that have been removed ??. If so maybe they could post it so that it can be referred to. This shows that Nominet are not independent from the DRS at all and it may well be that they seek to remove that to make it easier for complainants in future proceedings. You would never see removal of parts of a judgment in a court case without the Judge going through and agreeing it.Hearings are taped and then transcribed by third party translators from the tape. Does not inspire any confidence at all in the DRS procedure.

DG

sneezycheese

Unfortunately I do not ‘truly’ know the answer to this question. However, Nominet’s Company Solicitor did tell me the following:

[b]“In paragraph (f) of your letter you raise two specific objections to the Expert’s decision. We raised these with the Expert, and he has corrected one typographical error, and rephrased the second area to make it clearer what he meant. This does not alter the substance of the decision.”

The ‘typo’ that was removed was the sentence that I quoted before in my earlier post.

italiandragon

may I ask what name had your site? cheers

EdPhillips

Let me clarify this. The registrant involved contacted us with a concern about the clarity of the decision. Nominet passed those concerns back to the Expert, who amended his decision in order to make it clear what he meant. It did not change the outcome of the decision. The domain name was sundeckvip.co.uk DRS 03195 (available at http://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/decisions/). Nominet does not edit expert's decisions.

olebean

Its not very often i agree with the almighty, if it was as EdPhilips suggests and as both Ed and Mr Cheese agree, the desision woudn't have changed.

What is curious, I am hopefuly Ed will oblige in agreeing that the correspondance with Mr cheese could have been worded more appropriately, especially considering the grievance already expressed.

domainer

How come a domain like this goes to the DRS process anyway - its hardly generic. Or am I missing something.

rob

There was a dispute, sneezycheese said it was generic and Aston Media Ltd who trade as Sundeckvip claim they had rights.

Thus it goes into the DRS process to solve

__________________
Eat more chips! Dont let salad win! hey.
how to sell a website | sell your website to me whats the number for milk tokens? TDA Blue Badge
Wrexham News Wrexham Weather
Owain Glyndwr

sneezycheese

This is my point – Surely a decision should be based on the findings, not that the findings should be ‘massaged’ so to justify a decision!

‘Expert’ finds that… “There is no evidence to show that the Respondent registered this Domain Name with prior knowledge of the Complainant’s business”

What has been done here is that instead of correcting the conclusion, this key finding has been DELETED so to make the conclusion plausible. There’s no getting away from it, this is what has happened!

The bottom line is the decision was edited upon Nominet's instruction (sorry ‘invitation’).

Why ED couldn’t have just admitted the mistake and said sorry, I do not know.

Remember the decision was made on the basis of Paragraph 3(a){i} C. of the Policy, which says:

Evidence of Abusive Registration;

{i} Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or otherwise acquired the Domain Name primarily;

C. for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant.