ADNDRC HK and some of its panelists - bad, unethical & illegal conducts evidences

[bwhhisc]

Originally Posted by dusty

11/18/08 Wait, there seems to be a discrepancy between the decision attached and this email. The decision says the Complaint was rejected, however the instruction in the email says the name should be transferred to the complainant. Please advise.

Sincerely,
Dusty Hill

************
11/19/08- The system had sent out the notification by error on 18 November, 2008. We apologized for the confusion. Please ignore it and the correct version should be the one below:

That is a big GRIN....sure, blame it on "the system". Congrats on a good decision.

Seems the inmates are running the asylum.

[MDM]

Originally Posted by bwhhisc

That is a big GRIN....sure, blame it on "the system". Congrats on a good decision.

Seems the inmates are running the asylum.

Re. adndrc hk modify "Decision Date" for decisions


adndrc hk just have so many 'defaults' and they have so many excuses, what they could do now is denying their dishonesty and wrongdoings and keeps alleging that they are following UDRP (just like a suspect caught would not admit guilty normally but this does not stop people from finding him guilty).


If anyone here has ever downloaded the adndrc hk cases decision from the super slow sites, you'll see the following information before the body content of each decision prepared by adndrc hk's administrators (sorry we have to put them as "manipulators" as their manipulation of the Decision Dates is shown below) :

-----------------------
Decision ID DE-0XXXXXX
Case ID HK-0XXXXXX
Disputed Domain Name www.DisputedName.com
Case Administrator Ricky Wong [or Dennis Cai]
Submitted By [sumitting panelist's name]
Participated Panelist
Date of Decision dd-mm-20yy
-----------------------

After the above information is the body content of the decision, and at the end of the decision were: name of the panelist(s) and the panel's signoff date.

It's funny to to notice there are adndrc hk decisions with unbelivably high ratio of the "panelist signoff dates" at the end of the decision being different from the "Date of Decision" reported by adndrc hk's administrators (manipulators)". At first we thought the incompetent adndrc hk just mistook "Date of Decision" as "Published Date", but that is not the case.

To illustrate with some decisions filed by Wilkinson & Grist for billionaire Li Ka Shing:

Case ID / disputed domain name / Date of Decision (by adndrc hk administrators) / Panel's signoff date (by panel) / [calculated date difference as modified by adndrc hk]

HK-0800237 長江基建.com 17-04-2009 April 15, 2009 [+ 2 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800191 长实集团.net 3-11-2009 二○○八年十月三十一日 (31 Oct 09) [+ 3 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800187 長江集團.com 03-03-2009 27 February 2009 [+ 4 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800185 长实集团.com 07-11-2008 2008年10月27日 (27 Oct 09) [+ 11 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800182 cheungkong.net 11-12-2008 December 5, 2008 [+ 6 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800181 李嘉诚基金会.com 25-02-2009 16 February 2009 [+ 9 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800180 李嘉誠.com 30-12-2008 22 December 2008 [+ 8 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800179 长江基建.com 29-10-2008 22 October 2008 [+ 7 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800177 长江基建集团.com 30-12-2008 24 December 2008 [+ 6 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800175 长实.com 29-10-2008 10 October 2008 [+ 19 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800174 长江.net 17-11-2008 15 November 2008 [+ 2 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800173 長江.com 16-02-2009 3 February 2009 [+ 13 days by adndrc hk]
HK-0800172 长江.com 02-01-2009 1 January 2009 [+ 1 days by adndrc hk]

The real reasons for adndrc hk modifying the decision dates are unknown.

However, as adndrc hk has NOT been following the UDRP timeframe for publishing decisions consistenly and habitually, one possible reason for their modifying the decision dates (all of the modification are dating a LATER date) may be making the case's actual "Published Date" look closer to the "[modified] Decision Date" as adndrc hk is obligated to publish the case within a few days after panel's rendering the decision.

Also as many fellow domainers here have noted, another convincing reasons was that adndrc hk has been manipulating the Decision Date / Published Date to interfere respondent's panel selection decision, and control the type and amount of published decisions available to the respondents in preparing their responses.

If these reasons hold, adndrc hk just assume readers of decisions are idiots and will not note that there is a panel's signoff date at the end of the decisions. They have been assuming everyone is idiots that's why they dared doing stupid and dishonest things repeatedly and still feel shameless.

[MDM]

Originally Posted by dusty

Also, I don't know if it was intentional in hopes I wouldn't read the actual decision, but there was a little drama in handing down the decision for 长江.net as well. You can read the final email exchange below. At the time I figured common mistake, but I am not so sure anymore.

Originally Posted by dusty

************
[from adndrc hk]
11/19/08

The system had sent out the notification by error on 18 November, 2008. We apologized for the confusion.

Please ignore it and the correct version should be the one below:

************

The above bad faith practice and intention is consistent to our findings posted above (post 42). adndrc hk modified the Decision Date also hoping people would not notice there is a panel signoff date which should be the correct decision date. So it is hardly convincing to trust adndrc hk made repeated 'mistakes' unintentionally, their 'system' mentioned by adndrc hk is designed to cheat and scam, hoping that people will not discover.


Dear fellows, we know that a magazine with 200,000 circulation approaches (unsolicited) one of the adndrc hk domain names dispute losers, wishing to write a journal about adndrc hk and the public accusation against them after seeing many negative reports about adndrc hk.

If you have more to tell, please pm us, we will pass to the domain name disputed case loser and the magazine.

[Giant]

Originally Posted by dusty

11/19/08

The system had sent out the notification by error on 18 November, 2008. We apologized for the confusion.

In my 長江.com case, the system (of crooks) also sent out a notification of appointing Panelists (by error ?) that they had appointed David Kreider as a sole Panelist even though we requested and paid for a 3-member Panel.

We filed our Response on Nov. 24, 2008. They appointed David 2 days later (that quick!). My lawyer immediately sent them an email to remind them. No reply, we sent them one more on Dec. 1st, 2008. No reply, we sent them 3rd email. Still no reply until Dec. 16, 2008.... (Received no apology from them)

--------------
From: "ADNDRC_HK" <hkiac@adndrc.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:58:39 +0800

Date: 24 November 2008

Re.: HK-0800173<長江.com>_ Notification of Response received

A Response to your Domain Name Dispute concerning Domain Name <長江.com> (Case ID: HK-0800173) has been submitted by the Respondent to the Hong Kong Office of the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) within the required period of time. (See Attached)

--------------
From: "ADNDRC_HK" <hkiac@adndrc.org> (Add as Preferred Sender)
Date: Wed, Nov 26, 2008 12:44 am

Date: 26 November 2008

Re.: HK-0800173<長江.com>_Confirmation of Panelist

Dear Sir,

We are writing to inform you that the Panelist(s) as listed below has been appointed by the Hong Kong Office of the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) as the Panelist(s) pursuant to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the Rules for ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the ADNDRC Supplemental Rules in respect of the above domain name.

Mr. David KREIDER

The Case Administrator shall transfer the case file to the Panelist very soon. In accordance with the Rules, if there be no exceptional circumstances, a decision for the captioned domain name dispute will be rendered by the Panelist by 10 December, 2008.


-----Nov 26, 2008 - My 1st Reminding the Case Admin of 3-Panelist Panel

Dear Mr. Cai,

Please note that the Respondent selected a 3-member panel. We sent payment via Fedex.

Please confirm receipt ASAP.

Yours truly,

------Dec. 1, 2008 - My 2nd Reminding the Case Admin of 3-Panelist Panel

Dear Mr. Cai,

.... as confirmed by Fedex. Accordingly, please confirm your receipt and proceed to appoint a 3-member panel. Please inform Mr. Kreider accordingly.

.....

Yours truly,

------Dec. 2, 2008 - My 3rd Reminding the Case Admin of 3-Panelist Panel

Dear Mr. Cai,

May I kindly have a response to my email, dated December 1, 2008, which follows our previous correspondence. I confirm that in our Response we requested a 3-member panel and have paid for same. Would you therefore kindly confirm that a three-member panel is being appointed.

Yours truly,

** These crooks are supposed to be working as pimps or drug dealers on the streets but are now "running the asylum".

[Asiaplay]

It gets even worse as these more facts come to light and to be honest some people should be fired over this and an indepentant inquiry conducted.

Agree with earlier requests - really it is a time for a domain disputes area to be added into the IDNforums (and any other domain forums) - perhaps one sub-category for each arbitration centre (center).
So forum Admins - perhaps add this in - what do you think?

Really the guys are right - bottom line is if domainers (and those involved in actual resolutions) do not bring these matters forward to the public and act as a watchdog (and to the appropriate Govt where each centre is located) - no one else will help to fix or recetify what is fast becoming an unethical unfair, unprofessional embarassment to those who are meant to be resolving things and to the Government where the centre is located.

Governments (including Hong Kong Government) needs to make sure that IP rights (e.g. Domains) and resolutions are carried out to a professional, competent level and in an unbiased manner, if they expect for investors to remain positive to remaining in a business environment, within their boundaries.
They stamp down on other IP issues here (e.g. trademark or contraband enfringement) and somehow this is slipping through the cracks.

Who goven's the powers ADNDRC has actually and who decides on the head of this centre?
Contacting the press and appropriate Govt complaints body in Hong Kong and abroad (e.g. USA) should make a difference (of course this is best done by those who were involved in actual decsions and have the relevant information to share directly).
Basically anything that hits the media spotlight and causes an embarrassment, demands the Government to act is the rule of thumb here.

Cheers - Asiaplay

[MDM]

Originally Posted by MDM

Dear fellows, we know that a magazine with 200,000 circulation approaches (unsolicited) one of the adndrc hk domain names dispute losers, wishing to write a journal about adndrc hk and the public accusation against them after seeing many negative reports about adndrc hk.

If you have more to tell, please pm us, we will pass to the domain name disputed case loser and the magazine.

Yes more to come please, we will pass it to the party approached by the unsolicited magazine. We anticipate this is just the beginning when the media starts to be alerted.

Originally Posted by dusty

Also, I don't know if it was intentional in hopes I wouldn't read the actual decision, but there was a little drama in handing down the decision for 长江.net as well. You can read the final email exchange below. At the time I figured common mistake, but I am not so sure anymore.

Dusty, apart from the [scamming] 'system error' you noted, it's remembered that you told that adndrc hk simply assigned a panelist to your case (with response filed) without giving you a list of 5 candidates. Are there more irregularities you have noted? Besides, can you detail the timeline of your case for EACH checkpoints/correspondence? PM us if you do not wish to make public here.

Originally Posted by Giant

In my 長江.com case, the system (of crooks) also sent out a notification of appointing Panelists (by error ?) that they had appointed David Kreider as a sole Panelist even though we requested and paid for a 3-member Panel.

We filed our Response on Nov. 24, 2008. They appointed David 2 days later (that quick!). My lawyer immediately sent them an email to remind them. No reply, we sent them one more on Dec. 1st, 2008. No reply, we sent them 3rd email. Still no reply until Dec. 16, 2008.... (Received no apology from them)

Giant, see if you can also provide the same detailed timeline, including your WIPO case, we'll try to do cross-cases analysis for various cases filed by Wilkinson & Grist to find out what adndrc hk had been trying to manipulate for Wilkinson & Grist's / Li Ka Shing's benefit. PM us if you do not wish to make public here.

[MDM]

Special Committee setup to investigate ADNDRC HK, its personnel

(Suspect / defendant "investigating" ownself and "reporting" to ownself :o ??)

http://www.adndrc.org/announcement/A...e_05102009.pdf

Under greater pressure and probably some queries from media (e.g. a magazine with 200,000 circulation), ADNDRC HK is setting up (or has already setup??) a committee to "investigate" the matters.

However, do you and the public should still trust that a special committee setup by ADNDRC HK itself and reporting to ADNDRC HK itself will be impartial and indpendent?? They have been already kept telling people that the ADNDRC HK's administrative personnels and panelist are impartial, independent, competentent and professional, but what are the outcome and evidences are indicating so far?? Is it just a show and political gesture to setup an "investigation" to then report nothing wrong is found as this their misconducts and wrongdoings are becoming more public and they need to address the public's awareness? And are they expecting by conducting this "investigation", this will save them from being investigated by the authorities??!

Also will the panelists be investigated??

It appears that NO ONE from the Council has approached the major parties making the claims against ADNDRC HK, its personnel and panelists, so what are they investigating and what are the basis if they do not approach the claimants asking for further information and details?

ADNDRC HK just provides a contact in the above hyperlinked page, who is going to note that there's such an "investigation"?! If their intention is keep this low profile and expect the case will be over soon by conducting an "independent and impartial" investigation, we do not expect anything new or surprising from the "ready" decisions the committe might already have, as certain of the ADNDRC HK panelists have been doing so to many of their handled disputed cases.

To be a trustworthy investigation, it must be conducted by a party other than ADNDRC HK, this is not enough if someone "independent" are handling the "investigation" and report to ADNDRC HK, it should be handled by other authorities e.g. Independent Commission Against Corruption, Law Society, Police, ICANN (we hope ICANN accrediting ADNDRC HK is independent in this regard).


ADNDRC site revamp

Recently we noted there's a major revamp of ADNDRC HK's site especially regarding the decision listing, they are merging decisions from all offices (Hong Kong, Beijing, Seoul, and Kualua Lumpur becomes the new member office), so Hong Kong office's decisions is not highlighted? Besides, it is noted that in the ravamped site that they have removed the decision "Published Date" information which we have demonstrated some parties have complained against ADNDRC HK that they have been providing false information (e.g. backdating the Published Date). The major improvement is the speed of accessing the decision listing and downloading the case is now very satisfactory (before the revamp, the download speed of 1 case from Hong Kong and mainland China took 3 - 15 minutes).

[MDM]

Originally Posted by MDM

Special Committee setup to investigate ADNDRC HK, its personnel

(Suspect / defendant "investigating" ownself and "reporting" to ownself :o ??)

http://www.adndrc.org/announcement/A...e_05102009.pdf

Can't show the complete link as it's cut short by idnf.

http://www.adndrc.org/announcement/A...e_05102009.pdf

the "A...e_05102009.pdf" should read as "ADNDRC_Press_Release_05102009.pdf"

[Zak Muscovitch]

This is truly incredible. I have never seen anything like it. They must have serious concerns about misconduct to have undertaken such an investigation. All I can say is, "Wow".

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by Zak Muscovitch

This is truly incredible. I have never seen anything like it. They must have serious concerns about misconduct to have undertaken such an investigation. All I can say is, "Wow".

Yes, and the silly thing is if Mis-Conduct is found all the domains can be simply transferred back. There is nowhere to hide.

[Drewbert]

internal investigation usually results in wet bus ticket. :^(

[Zak Muscovitch]

Its a huge embarrassment to even commence an investigation for misconduct, because such investigations likely would not be commenced without a clear suspicion of wrongdoing. Of course the outcome could be a whitewash, but I suspect that complaints were taken very seriously, and perhaps these complaints were not even made by IDN members...Who knows. I will be watching this closely. This is SO dramatic because there has never been such an occurance in the 10 years of domain name dispute arbitration.

[Drewbert]

And what is ICANN's position on the investigation?

Do they even know what's going on?

Surely since ICANN is a bottom-up, open transparent organisation (cough hack) there should be some sort of announcement on ICANN's site?

[Zak Muscovitch]

I just saw this news item with some additional details on the apparent allegations. Can anyone offer some more information about this?

http://www.abnnewswire.net/press/en/...)-Limited.html

[Zak Muscovitch]

A prominent Canadian domain name owner has left a comment on my blog (http://www.dnattorney.com/blog.shtml) providing a link to a news item regarding the NAF - National Arbitration Forum and serious allegations appearing in the Wall Street Journal that remain unproven.


http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/.../msg03398.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1255...googlenews_wsj

[Rubber Duck]

Seems like Frank could do with some Cavalry to back him up.

Originally Posted by Zak Muscovitch

A prominent Canadian domain name owner has left a comment on my blog (http://www.dnattorney.com/blog.shtml) providing a link to a news item regarding the NAF - National Arbitration Forum and serious allegations appearing in the Wall Street Journal that remain unproven.


http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/.../msg03398.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1255...googlenews_wsj

[Rubber Duck]

Is this Frank, The Frank?

[Zak Muscovitch]

If people want this Committee to look at certain aspects and allegations, I suggest that a letter be sent to the Committee outlinging your allegations and facts. That is the proper way to handle the situation.

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by Zak Muscovitch

If people want this Committee to look at certain aspects and allegations, I suggest that a letter be sent to the Committee outlinging your allegations and facts. That is the proper way to handle the situation.

Yes, what I was trying to suggest that if all the complaints were presented to the Committee at the same time their joint weight would have more impact, than complaints dibbling in a longer period.

[Clotho]

Originally Posted by Zak Muscovitch

I just saw this news item with some additional details on the apparent allegations. Can anyone offer some more information about this?

http://www.abnnewswire.net/press/en/...)-Limited.html

I noticed at the bottom of the article under the heading of related companies that Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited and Hutchison Whampoa Ltd were mentioned.

I know that Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited was the complainant in some cases. Does anyone know how Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd. is connected (besides being part of the Li Ka-shing group of companies?)