safesys

why? A DRS appeal is relatively expensive, it follows that appeals are more likely to be filed where there is an expectation of an overturn.

invincible

You've quoted the 40% figure before and I believe I have also previously pointed out that the way you state it is misleading. I think you mean to say that 40% of all DRS decisions *that are appealed* have the original decision overturned. It certainly isn't the case that 40% of all DRS decisions are overturned on appeal, which I want to make sure is absolutely clear here!

The fact that 40% of the DRS decisions *that are appealed* have the original decision overturned could be because one party had a genuine belief that the original decision was wrong, for all kinds of reasons. People think carefully before they appeal. What percentage do the DRS reversals constitute of the entire number of DRS decisions that have gone to a summary or full decision?

One cannot simply suggest that because perhaps 40% of DRS decisions that are appealed have the original decision overturned, the entire DRS is flawed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

__________________
Email: invincible.domains@gmail.com (I have disabled private messaging for ease) :)

domainking

Yes this is English law but we also have " Scottish law"would think that a case would also have to go into Scottish courts for a ruling with regards to this.

__________________
Glasgow Largs Cumbernauld Helensburgh Dunoon Jedburgh
Greenock

anthony

? You're correcting something that didn't need correcting. My comment was very clear, AND TRUE, which is that 40% of DRSs are overturned on appeal.

Well stating that belief is pretty obvious really, dont you think? But just because they believe it is wrong, it doesn't follow that they are right until put to the test. Importantly from your viewpoint, it also doesn't default to a position that all the other DRS decisions were therefore correct. Unless they too go to appeal, you could never know whether they could be overturned. Yes there are many DRS decisions that are blatently obvious are correct, but it doesn't follow that they all are.

Exactly, and that decision will boil down to matters such as whether they can afford to appeal, or whether there is a value (of whatever nature) in the domain to merit them spending and appealing. That's going to be a minimum £3,600 decision in every case, it is totally naive to ignore this and then expect to uphold all non-appealed decisions as therefore valid and correct.

What is your opinion about the high percentage of appeals being overtuned, and how the original 'experts' (that always makes me laugh) got it so wrong?

__________________
For sale: Labradorite | Suppressors | Periscopes

safesys

you're making a straw man argument there - that is not what he said at all

that is a correct statement. given the very low ratio of appeals to decisions, appeals themselves don't really shed any light on the efficacy of the drs as a whole. drs appeals are inherently skewed towards cases where there is an expectation of the decision being overturned by their very nature.

if anything, it suggests that the appeals process is not biased towards keeping the status quo and not upsetting the experts who delivered the original decision. that's a good thing.

wb

As it's a relatively similar procedure, it could be useful to compare the DRS figures to that of convictions in the UK:

Criminal Cases Review Commission 2010/11 ('Outcome of referrals heard', p. 18).

From a total of 33 referred convictions that actually got to the appeals stage, 20 had a positive outcome (~60%) and 13 were dismissed (~40%).

Those figures may look high (50% higher than DRS based on it having only a 40% success rate), but only ~2.5% of all cases closed actually got through to the appeals stage where those figures apply.

Couldn't seem to find a referenced figure for the percentage of all DRS decisions that are appealed, although I did only have a quick look. This news bulletin suggests on p. 8 it could be just 0.01%, far lower than for criminal convictions.

anthony

Why is there an expectation? What sets those original decisions apart? If they were not appealed, they'd stand just like all the others? As I've said, £3,000+ VAT is a high enough price to pay to put most people off launching an appeal. Given you cannot introduce any new evidence etc, it boils down mainly to a complaint about the manner of the original decision, in which case Nominet should be accepting the appeal in the basis of a complaint, without cost, just like many other complaint procedures found elsewhere.

40% of appeals overturned is a fact, but making one of the parties pay more independent experts for a review is a strange kind of 'good practice' in my book!

A good thing? For independent decisions that an absolute requirement, not something to be thankful for!

The DRS is not as independent as it should be, it's long overdue that it is removed from Nominet's scope of responsibility completely, something I suspect will happen sooner or later. And the appeals decision should always mirror the IPO model, where it can go to either an appointed person or the High Court.

__________________
For sale: Labradorite | Suppressors | Periscopes

safesys

I don't understand your point. The losing party gets to look at the decision and the basis upon which it was made - and if they believe the decision was made in error, they can then pay a relatively large sum to have it corrected. Ergo, they have an expectation of a win - it would be a waste of money to pay for a case that they don't really think has any chance of being overturned. If the appeals fee was a trivial amount it would be worth people taking more a "punt" approach to appeals - although a loss at appeal is more "serious" than a loss under a single expert so they may weigh up how it might reflect on them in addition to the cost.

Individual experts can go off-piste and render poor decisions - a 3 person panel costs more to administer and the fee also acts as a fiscal filter for appeals to skew it towards winnable cases. Why wouldn't you want a means of having a low-cost initial single expert decision checked?

we live in the real world - not utopia. the drs isn't perfect, but I'd take it over the udrp any day of the week.

the whole point of the drs and all other dispute services, is that they are a relatively low cost and quick means of getting redress. The nominet approach with mediation and an in-built appeals process makes it a pretty balanced system on the whole.

You throw things to the courts and you bring in cost, delays and damages. That would be a barrier for many small businesses to get justice on either side of the equation.

I agree though that there needs to be a way for the courts to make a final determination as to whether the registrant is entitled to hold the domain or not under UK law.

anthony

A bit of a twist on things:

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-08/l...ates-air-line/

__________________
For sale: Labradorite | Suppressors | Periscopes