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: 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: 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?