DRS D00028377

[Hook]

There is so much wrong with this it's unreal, I think an independent Judge is the right way to go. It's quite a cheap process, £300'ish to let a judge see it. If they are saying it's obvious I could never have been successful, then it's also obvious Nominet should never have accepted the fees. They can't have it both ways.

In one of the non-standard submissions, when discussing who the real respondent is, I actually invited them to cancel the name, refund me. They never mention that.

Didn't the courts already say that they won't reverse an industry specific mediation decision?

Have you ever considered letting it go?

 

[Jeff]

If @Ree got a pizza for giving you bad advice, what do @Marek and I get for giving you good advice? I'll take a year's supply of pizza, but I imagine Marek would prefer the services of the waitress in the pizzeria.

I have to say that I think you're naïve to have published the decision ahead of it appearing on Nominet's website. Whether deliberately or not, Nominet gave you - and you alone - a heads-up that the domain was about to be cancelled, and you immediately throw away that advantage by sharing the information with a bunch of dropcatchers on a domainer forum! What were you thinking?

As for

I think I'll start a Court claim on this one.

and

Letter before Action sent

my advice this time is: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

 

[GreyWing]

Didn't the courts already say that they won't reverse an industry specific mediation decision?

Have you ever considered letting it go?

I can't do anything about the decision or the RDNH mark - those two things are gone - but I can ask Nominet why they accepted money for something their rules say should have been cancelled.

 

[GreyWing]

If @Ree got a pizza for giving you bad advice, what do @Marek and I get for giving you good advice? I'll take a year's supply of pizza, but I imagine Marek would prefer the services of the waitress in the pizzeria

You say bad and good advice. I challenged the experts to repeat any accusations of dishonesty, they didn't. I challenged them to repeat that I misled them, they didn't. They have now conceded that I have rights in the name.

Progress has been made.

They have come up with two new points, and I'll deal with those via court action. If I should have known, then so should Nominet and not allowed the drs and appeal. There is a legal term for it, but in general terms they took money for a service that had no chance of rendering a decision that it was designed to do.

This is just contractual law now.

As for the name dropping, the name is another issue. But if the name was a concern, it enters a 5 day public drop cycle so I'm not sure what would be to gain by not publishing.