What's the point of the first round of the DRS if it can't conclude anything? does Nominet send a 'partisan' recommendation of a result to the expert? The above answers those, however... Is it a good idea to not go all guns blazing in the first half and show your hand and instead wait until the second part before giving the Complainant a sniff at your defence? Perhaps a non reply would work in your favour, then the complainant only has his initial argument to go on and not your first half defence as a rebutal? Is that how it works? I have a water tight case and will win however I am willing to see what the mediation stage offers me, I'm just trying to find out if sending a minimum response in the first instance is better, and then when the real complaint comes in DRS part 2 - the paid for sequel, then I can lay out my defence better. Does the expert take into account the first half as well as the second or just the second? (I've noted mediation cannot be presented as evidence - points of discussion, not initial defence or complaint.) If both then I can take advantage of some of the minor points of the complaint and then go in for the kill in the second part. Is there any way of ensuring the expert takes note of part one as well as part two? Doubling an effective defence, although I've not read how many words I get at DRS2 yet. That then enables a two pronged attacking defence and doesn't leave the complainant knowing my whole defence strategy only for them to be more in the know at the second stage and I find myself on the back foot because I revealed too much in the first instance. Does that make sense? is that how that can also work? Any advice gratefully received, I don't have the obvious advatange in this as I can't afford a solicitor's services.