Domain Manage

Tony Willoughby four stage test

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by Whois-Search, Jun 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Whois-Search United Kingdom

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,567
    Likes Received:
    27
    Tony Willoughby's four stage test first appeared in this DRS case:

    http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/1027_chivasbrothers.pdf

    How often does he use it in DRS cases ?

    Why isn't it in the DRS policy ?

    http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/drs/


    Also why have Respondents quoted it in future DRS cases:

    http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/4860_sundeckvip3.pdf

    Also what do you have to have on your CV to be a DRS expert ?

    http://www.iprights.com/people/ecvs.asp?contactID=26
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
     
  3. bb99 United Kingdom

    bb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    38
    I was going to post a very facetious comment comparing it with Norman Tebbit's infamous cricket test. However I have seen sense and will instead say this:

    It raises an issue re precedents - this four stage test has been used in other expert's DRS decisions as well as Uncle Tony's. But, without reading every DRS and spotting the pattern and the emergence of this wonderful test, how are people meant to know that the expert will go down these lines and plan appropriately in their response?

    I've even read decisions where an expert recites and rubber stamps his/her own previous reasoning in other decisions. It's like DRS masturbation ;) .

    It's encouraging to note that the issue of precedents is coming up in the forthcoming DRS review. Fingers crossed.
     
  4. sneezycheese

    sneezycheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2005
    Posts:
    550
    Likes Received:
    15
    ...This question was asked at the meeting - Don't you remember the answer? ;)


    ...They didn't, it was the 'Expert'. Had the 'Respondant' known of this 'Test' and its inclusion, then I have no dobt he would of responded accordingly. ;)
     
  5. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    If I remember correctly these were 2 of the reasons why Nominet said they would make their webpages more respondent friendly too, as opposed to just 'complainant friendly' ... and this was a direct result of what you and the others suggested at that meeting.

    Regards
    James Conaghan
     
  6. olebean

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    29

    Jac

    They suggested (already posted in another thread) they had on another server something similar to how to bring a complaint to enable a respondant to defend themselves.....
     
  7. sneezycheese

    sneezycheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2005
    Posts:
    550
    Likes Received:
    15
    ...If I remember correctly - wasn't there an admission that the current Policy wasn't clear and that commitment from Nominet to review at the next DRS Review, the inclusion into the Policy some 'Expert' Processes like the one mentioned here?
     
  8. Jac

    Jac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2006
    Posts:
    660
    Likes Received:
    12
    I remember there was a commitment to plainer English and making things clearer all round, but I wouldn't want to pre-empt the DRS review consultation which I will hopefully come sooner than later.

    Regards
    James Conaghan
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page