cancelled in error

[retired_member12]

Well, just make contact with the Expert after the Decision to clarify what documents were passed on by Nominet. In the interests of justice the Expert would probably complain to Nominet if a document potentially pivotal to the Decision had not been passed on.

There is no point trying to contact the 'expert' after the decision, as the agrieved party would then need to go to DRS appeal to further the matter, and Nominet's DRS fails to provide scope for the 'expert' to reply to such an enquiry, or consider what further weight the omissions might have had on his/her decision.
Nominet are not even compelled to duplicate copies of what has been forwarded, or provide a simple list of them. They don't even need to give reasons for their decisions as to what they have or have not passed on.

The last time I looked, their web site said that the DRS is a transparent method of resolving disputes. Hardly transparent when the parties involved haven't the foggiest idea what the 'expert' sees!

This wouldn't even be a talking point in a judicial process!

I do wish they would drop the label 'expert' too, which is something Nominet appears to promote, and have decided is appropriate to their appointment. A DRS Adjudicator is much more in line with the accepted norm.

 

[retired_member11]

There is no point trying to contact the 'expert' after the decision, as the agrieved party would then need to go to DRS appeal to further the matter, and Nominet's DRS fails to provide scope for the 'expert' to reply to such an enquiry, or consider what further weight the omissions might have had on his/her decision.
Nominet are not even compelled to duplicate copies of what has been forwarded, or provide a simple list of them. They don't even need to give reasons for their decisions as to what they have or have not passed on.

The last time I looked, their web site said that the DRS is a transparent method of resolving disputes. Hardly transparent when the parties involved haven't the foggiest idea what the 'expert' sees!

This wouldn't even be a talking point in a judicial process!

I do wish they would drop the label 'expert' too, which is something Nominet appears to promote, and have decided is appropriate to their appointment. A DRS Adjudicator is much more in line with the accepted norm.

An Expert can have integrity beyond the DRS Policy. Nominet is not beyond reproach. I believe there have been occasions where 'discussions' have taken place between Nominet and Expert on various aspects of certain cases.

 

[invincible]

I wonder if you can claim for damages and losses if you had already sold said domain, used a drop catcher where it cost you up to 70, any they will only refund you reg fee. Since it was clearly their error but the without prejudice may cause issues with a claims procedure.

Stands to reason that if you reg thru godaddy it costs like 25 or whatever, 123 is 6, so if they refund what you paid would that make them liable for 3rd party costs like a sale or would they try to say 6quid recover the rest from your registrar which is wrong as its not the registrars fault.

Terms and Conditions - see point 29.

 

[retired_member12]

An Expert can have integrity beyond the DRS Policy. Nominet is not beyond reproach. I believe there have been occasions where 'discussions' have taken place between Nominet and Expert on various aspects of certain cases.

Yes, you're right, they can have integrity beyond the DRS Policy. The problem is, the DRS Policy doesn't provide for it, so the 'experts' have no obligations on that basis. Whatever discussions may have taken place, there is no public record of them, and Nominet can argue it is not their place to get involved, because the 'expert' is independent, which is why the money is forwarded to the 'expert' in full.
The DRS should be removed from Nominet all together to be honest. It is never a good thing where a single company or body has total control over every minute aspect of an industry. In the long run, it is always best to have some degree of independence in a governance, accountability or review capacity, and in fact, it's the natural progression of things.

 

[Skinner]

That point 29 explains the without prejudice then don't it.

Which means that up to 5k nom are liable.

 

[keys]

The correct process was followed

"... As he did not produce any further evidence regarding the disputed cancellation, I am in the position to confirm that the correct process was followed. Your registration of the domain name is not going to be reverted or cancelled ..."