Took me a while to work out what IANAL meant - at first blush it seemed a bit rude! Now if it means I Am Not A Lawyer - then IAAL. IANAD though - so quite a bit of what follows in your comments simply does not apply to me. Plenty of reasons that will be made clear in due course. I've said why I am obliged to keep most of my powder dry - but I have asked you to deal with a few specific things that I think favour the Complainant. Tellingly, you have not offered a reply. Here's another. Why does the Claimant get two 2,000 word submissions (which can both include new evidence/claims - one of which is unanswered) - while the Respondent only gets one. The opportunity to speak both first and last is a major advantage and again highly unusual - especially where the length of submissions is so tightly controlled. I'd be grateful if you could point me at where the OFT has said this. The EGM showed that 3 or so members control the voting structure at Nominet. You can not seriously argue with that. They each have 10%+ of the vote - which on the basis of the turnout amounted to over 60% of the votes cast. This "community" notion needs to be scotched. The "community" is limited to those with sufficient commercial interest to pay to belong. The real stakeholders in the .uk internet community is every person and company in the UK. They should not need to pay £500 to join the club. One WHOIS database - a controlled list of competing regsistrars who offer competitive terms (including whether their clients want ADR or not) to consumers. Think BT and unbundling the local loop; or other utilities with one central supply. Or give it to the Patent Office and let us all own it - as we should. Neither does the Expert once it has been sent to the parties. The term "Decision" is clearly defined in the DRS Policy. The Policy/Procedure does not cater for "revised" Decisions. The Decision - as sent to the parties and as defined in the DRS - should have stood unaltered. Those are the rules in black and white.