ICDR posted two different panelist documents for the same exact top level domain string confusion objection.
I’ve had a lot to gripe about the online systems for International Centre for Dispute Resolution when it comes to string confusion objections. One of those gripes was that the decision in Afilias vs. Donuts over .pets suddenly disappeared from the ICDR’s website in August.
ICDR updated the case list earlier this week and the Donuts’ .pets decision is now visible again. But it’s not actually the decision that was handed down in August and posted to the website back then. For some odd reason, a slightly altered version of the original decision has been posted – complete with a new signature date.
Yet it’s rather surprising that an altered version of the case has been uploaded, and two months later to boot. The new official record shows that the case was decided on October 20, 2013, when it was originally decided on August 15, 2013.
It appears a key reason for the updated decision is language around “Applicant” and “Respondent”. The August decision refers to Donuts primarily as “Respondent.” The October decision refers to Donuts as “Applicant.”
The biggest textual change between the two documents is a deleted section from the first decision that was titled “Formal Deficiencies of Parties’ Briefs.”
Apparently panelist Urs Laeuchli was a bit miffed that both parties had “deficiencies” in their filings. For example, since Donuts was responding to .pets objections brought by both Afilias and Google, Donuts accidentally included some text from its Google defense in its Afilias defense.
In the first decision, Laeuchli wrote “The panel is disappointed in these errors and omissions.”
The entire section about the deficiencies and his disappointment was removed from the second decision.
Above: two signatures blocks, dated more than two months apart, for the same new TLD dispute.