"Not even pretending to be a neutral arbiter of claims." (1.Viewing)

yikes. While this is a good point and seems like a blatant conflict of interest, I've felt they've treated me fairly in the past. Maybe I can get them to put my logo up there too, haha. They should put up an equal number of domain investor logos to be impartial.

Like their pro-corporate stance was ever in doubt and this ad promo just screams "Want to get your brand? Just pay the fee and we can steal it for you!"

Hell, even their corporate motto is:



All you need to do is look at the "no response" CDRPs vs UDRPs, where with the CDRP you have a 0% chance on the domain not going to the complainant, while the UDRP is a lot more even-handed, with panelists who actually follow the regulations, regardless of whether there is a response or not.

The CDRP is obviously designed to "give domains away to corporate interests" and if you do not respond (regardless of the situation) the respondent will lose, 100% of the time, and that is not right. The UDRP disproves this CDRP fallacy of following a "no response = guaranteed loss" process.

I have even seen RDNH findings with a UDRP non-response while with the CDRP the chances of that happening would be along the lines of winning the lottery 365 days in a row, while also being hit by lightning each of those days.

Nah, the odds would be even lower than that.

I can't argue that. Just saying that they have always treated me fairly.

rlm said:

I can't argue that. Just saying that they have always treated me fairly.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you fight for the right to party and are always on the lookout for danger.

What about the poor guy who is on vacation for a month and has no real facility to launch a challenge?

Original tweet is deleted.