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

[idncurious]

Originally Posted by bwhhisc

Congratuations to Giant on a successful outcome.
This will set a good benchmark for future claims.

Wait, does this mean Giant is the owner of 長江.com? So Giant is the owner of Netego who lives in Alberta?? :D

[MDM]

Originally Posted by idncurious

[Originally Posted by bwhhisc
Congratuations to Giant on a successful outcome.
This will set a good benchmark for future claims.]

Wait, does this mean Giant is the owner of 長江.com? So Giant is the owner of Netego who lives in Alberta?? :D

The name 長江.com (YangtzeRiver.com traditional chinese) was initially complained by Li Ka Shing group with ADNDRC HK under case HK-0800173. The owner should have no chance to win without some tactics and fighting for legitimate rights (with knowledge of course otherwise would have been deceited by ADNDRC HK) because,

1. ADNDRC HK deliberately manipulated the Panalist selection proceedings:

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/139156-post26.html

Originally Posted by Giant

Good job MDM, let's work together to get rid of the crooks in the domain name arbitration business.

I have my own proof of how adndrc hk manipulate the process of selecting Presiding Penalist in 長江.com proceedings.

2. ADNDRC HK intentionally ignored the UDRP procedures and directly appointed David Kreider to the case illegitimately until called stop by the Respondent.

In this case, Response was submitted and accordingly ADNDRC HK could not directly assign panelist, also, Respondent selected to have a 3-member panel, so obviously the direct assignment of David Kreider as sole panelists by ADNDRC HK was an obvious and deliberate misconduct and dishonesty intended to deceit the Respondent.

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/141182-post44.html

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)

--------------
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.
....

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

3. Even after called stop by the Respondent stating his right under UDRP rules & regulations and the request of a 3-member panel, so ADNDRC HK knew its direct assignment of David Kreider as a sole panelist in the case was illegitimate and deceptive intention spotted, they still have Plan B and the Complainant managed to send in another notorious panelist Zhao Yun to the ADNDRC HK platform for the case.


http://www.idnforums.com/forums/139956-post33.html

Originally Posted by Giant

We ranked Brown highest on our list and CK ranked Zhao Yun highest on theirs for Panelist. Both were chosen.

So the 3 panelists in the case:

ADNDRC HK's choice - David Kreider, one of the spotted panelists subject to the "Investigation" re. wrongdoings and misconducts involving ADNDC HK https://www.adndrc.org/announcement/...e_05102009.pdf

Complainant (Li Ka Shing group / Cheung Kong)'s choice - Zhao Yun (from list provided by Complainant), another spotted panelist subject to the "Investigation" on wrongdoings and misconducts involving ADNDC HK

Respondent's choice - Neil Anthony Brown (from list provided by Respondent), who is very respectable and 'taught the 2 panelists a lesson' in the case decision, http://www.adndrc.org/hk/CaseStorage...3_Decision.pdf

*******************
Mr. David Kreider, Presiding Panelist

The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC, Co-Panelist

Dr. Zhao, Yun, Co-Panelist

Dated: 3 February 2009

Neil Brown, dissenting:

.....

However, there is one aspect of the majority decision where, with respect, I differ and which I believe should be stated and another that I believe should be expanded.

.....

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

4. ADNDRC HK manipulated the decision publish dates of 2 prior and similiar names disputes (长江.net HK-0800174 : respondent won; 长江.com HK-0800172 : respondent lost with direct assignment of David Kreider as sole panelist decisions not according to procedures). The intention of ADNDRC HK's manipulating the various cases' decision publish dates was to influence the panelist(s) selection by respondents of 长江.com and 長江.com

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/139311-post29.html

Originally Posted by Giant

It's not difficult to see the irregularities if we read carefully the Decisions of these 3 domains: 长江.net, 长江.com, and 長江.com.

Decision date vs Published date:

长江.net Nov. 17, 2008 - Dec. 27, 2008

长江.com Jan. 1, 2009 - Jan. 2, 2009

長江.com Feb. 3, 2009 - Mar. 9, 2009

On the case of 长江.com:
....

- 长江.net was decided on Nov. 17 (by Dr. Xue Hong). If ADNDRC HK published the Decision on the same day then Respondent of 长江.com would have chosen Dr. Xue Hong to be the Panelist or would have requested to have a 3-member Panel. No, ADNDRC HK chose to delay the publishing until Dec. 27, 2008 so that David Kreider was assigned Panelist without objection.


On the case of 長江.com:

- Respondent of 長江.com filed its Response on Nov. 24, 2008 and was asked to provide and rank 3 cadidates for a Panelist for the case on Dec. 16, 2008. (Respondent missed the chance to select Dr. Xue Hong)

- Respondent was asked to select Presiding Panelist on Dec. 27, 2008 (within 5 days) and Decision of 长江.com was published on Jan. 2, 2009 right after Respondent had submitted its selection. (Respondent missed the chance to exclude David Kreider by ranking him low)

5 candidates provided by ADNDRC HK for ranking are:
1. Murphy Matthew A.
2. Chi Shaojie
3. Kreider David Laurence
4. Gao Lulin
5. Wu Anthony

** The above is only SOME of the proof we have.

5. Without Neil Anthony Brown in the case, the Respondent should have no or very little choice winning in the ADNDRC HK platform, given David Kreider and Zhao Yun were in the case.


6. After such an unexpected failure (almost impossible right ?) of getting (reverse-hijacking) the disputed name in the complainant-friendly ADNDRC HK platform with such setup and arrangement, the Complainant sneakily refiled the case to another domain names dispute Provider, World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/ap...-providers.htm
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains without notifying WIPO that it was a re-filed case.

And as many know, this 2nd deceit and dishonest attempt by Li Ka Shing group through its lawyers Wilkinson & Grist to resubmit the case to WIPO was again unsuccessful and the case was determined by WIPO as a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking case submitted with bad faith.


http://www.idnforums.com/forums/138497-post3.html

Originally Posted by MDM

Latest update:

....

2. After failure in getting 長江.com and 长实集团.com in initial complaints, the complainant (Li Ka Shing group), through its lawyers (Wilkinson & Grist) filed REPEATED complaints with WIPO WITHOUT NOTIFYING WIPO of the previous complaint. Obviously the complainant (or the lawyers actually) are not ethical that's why they could work closely and smoothly with those crooks administrators (and some panelists) in ADNDRC HK.

3. WIPO Decision on the Wilkinson & Grist's REPEATED (BUT UNINFORMED) complaints:

3a 長江.com
- complaint denied
- complaint found to be "brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" !!!

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2009-0540.html


Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

"The term reverse domain hijacking refers to the practice of acquiring domain names from owners by accusing them of violating trademarks with the domain name, and demanding that the domain be transferred." wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_domain_hijacking)


.....

Obviously WIPO panelists are more impartial then those in ADNDRC HK.

The conducts of the complainant's lawyers Wilkinson & Grist are unprofessional and unethical.

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/138524-post8.html

Originally Posted by Giant

I believe this is the 1st IDN Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Here's the news:

---------

Hong Kong Billionaire Li Ka Shing’s Companies Guilty of Domain Name Hijacking

A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) domain name dispute adjudication panel has found two companies owned by Hong Kong billionaire, Li Ka Shing, guilty of Attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, over the domain name, 長江.com, which means YangtzeRiver.com.

....

Contact:
Zak Muscovitch, 416-924-5084, zak@muscovitch.com, www.DNattorney.com, www.muscovitch.com

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/138711-post20.html

Originally Posted by Giant

... pls read:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2009-0289.html

In this case, Cheung Kong was not punished for deceiting the Panel and hiding the fact of a re-filed Complaint (although the Panel denied the Complaint).

How Giant's and others' experience with ADNDRC HK / WIPO will set a good benchmark for future claims will be discussed in another post coming soon.

[idncurious]

Thanks for posting all this cuz i am really trying to educate myself in this area.

Btw. Idn is still in its infancy. I really think that future cases will be built on this one. So i really hope all wrongs in this case will be corrected. Otherwise the future will be crooked by this case.

Best of luck to u and Giant.

[MDM]

Originally Posted by idncurious

Thanks for posting all this cuz i am really trying to educate myself in this area.

Btw. Idn is still in its infancy. I really think that future cases will be built on this one. So i really hope all wrongs in this case will be corrected. Otherwise the future will be crooked by this case.

Best of luck to u and Giant.

The crook is not on just this case (長江.com YangtzeRiver.com traditional chinese ADNDRC HK case HK-0800173) nor just a few cases, but a general, blatant and habitual practice of misconducts, wrongdoings and frauds conducted by ADNDRC HK, you can see many resources and postings in this thread (go to post 1 : http://www.idnforums.com/forums/2153...evidences.html) and in other forums.

We do not fight for just ourselves, but the entire domaining and arbitration circle. We just want level playing field, impartiality and equity not scams and platform that can abused by the crooks.

[MDM]

Originally Posted by idncurious

[Originally Posted by bwhhisc
Congratuations to Giant on a successful outcome.
This will set a good benchmark for future claims.]

Good benchmark for future claims :



1. If you are the crook domain names dispute resolution Provider and its administrators / panelists, or the "Investigation " Committee members

> learn this popular saying in Hong Kong involving a suspected corruption case under ICAC (Indepedent Commission Against Corruption) investigation recently widely reported in Hong Kong,
"You cannot falsify truth, nor verify lies / 真的假不了, 假的真不了" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebZDyR97kvI




2. If you want to reverse-hijack a name (i.e you are a complainant with an founded complaint) and/or you wish to have an almost-guaranteed success in your complaint


> approach ADNDRC HK / HKIAC (operator and manager of ADNDRC HK) but not other domain names dispute resolution Providers

> approach their Mercenary administrators and/or panelists, tell them what you want and then "agree the ‘engagement / services’ terms" with them, listen to their plans, they can do the rest for you

then you should get whatever names you want, hit rate is almost 100% (but it is becoming more difficult as the respondent may also read idnforums.com and may have learnt to be smarter and known the conspired scam now)




3. If you are a respondent to a name complaint filed with ADNDRC HK / HKIAC * and consider the complaint is unfounded and is likely to be a conspired reverse domain name hijacking attempt, or believe that there is a ready-answer for your case because you smell something. (* name complaint respondent cannot choose to avoid ADNDRC HK / HKIAC unfortunately as it is a choice / arrangement by the name complainant)

> learn the UDRP rules & regulations very carefully

> know your rights

> read idnforums.com for relevant news and knowledge, subscribe to relevant threads here

> watch out for dishonesty and misconducts of ADNDRC HK / HKIAC as they would likely be trying to deceit you by various manipulation and ignorance of UDRP procedures

> do choose a 3-member panel

> get a good lawyer to represent you otherwise they would bully you

> learn the tricks and know the record of dishonesty and misconducts of ADNDRC HK

> insist your position and fight as ADNDRC HK would intentionally ignore many of your legitimate requests and rights

> liaise with the previous cases respondents for guidance, experience and tactics sharing

> oppose the inclusion of notorious and spotted panelists from lists given by ADNDRC HK and the complainants

> don't trust ADNDRC HK / HKIAC for their representation, do your own analysis, researches, cases comparison, not even trust their inhouse "Investigation" of the complained misconducts and wrongdoings (http://www.idnforums.com/forums/158467-post70.html and http://www.idnforums.com/forums/158468-post71.html )

> make public and broadcast if there are any noted misconducts and dishonesty in your case, contact the mass media if appropriate


> if you still lose (definitely there are still many other complainant-friendly panelists not revealed in the forums and elsewhere), go to court (and call for press conference) http://www.idnforums.com/forums/158502-post72.html

Originally Posted by IDNer;

Breaking news!

Li Ka Shing group filed additional domain names with HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Center http://www.hkiac.org/show_content.php?sec=4 ), 'won' the names (as expected). The names Respondents losing the names called a press conference on 25th March 2010 expressing their discontent and have started a lawsuit against Li Ka Shing group in court of China.

ADNDRC HK is operated and managed by HKIAC, they are sharing same resources e.g. phone, office, fax, and certain staff and panelists are duplicating ... (see findings below). So what we expect from ADNDRC HK may be applying to HKIAC

[idncurious]

Originally Posted by MDM

[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="3"]
"You cannot falsify truth, nor verify lies / 真的假不了, 假的真不了"

I applaud your efforts... but I just want to caution you abit first

That saying is very idealistic. However, the truth is... these crooked things happen all the time. Its just that in North America, we have a politically correct term to hide under. It is called "Networking".

"Networking" basically means to "rub shoulders with the right people" .

And if you still unclear what is meant by terms "rub shoulders" / "the right people", it means "do small favors for the rich and powerful, and hope that one day it will come back huge to benefit you."

It is a small world. Do you blame the panelist for siding with the rich and powerful? Would you want to go on record as being the one who offended the richest guy in Asia?

Bottomline, the domain dispute system/process needs to change to protect the small guys. The domain dispute system needs to take into consideration that it is human beings that will be making the decision and we human beings will always be influenced by the fear of offending the rich and powerful (or by the hopes that the favor will be returned.)

This protection is especially needed for idns because idns are still in its infancy.

The bar to prove "bad faith" must be set higher. It needs to be even higher when we are dealing with generic IDNs such as 长江.com

(btw, I am not disagreeing with you that something more rotten/crooked is happening with the HK dispute center- thats for the investigation to conclude. All I am saying is, put that aside, and we still would probably have an unfair decision. The system needs to change! The bar needs to be set higher. There needs to be solid proof that the current owner is indeed using it in bad faith. Sort of like, if you want to accuse the owner of 长江.com having bad faith, you must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt"...or something along that line, if you know what I mean.)

[Giant]

Originally Posted by IDNer

Mr. Michael Hartmann has never responded to both Complainants A & B emails below.

==============================================
Email 1

From: <michaeljhartmann@judiciary.gov.hk>
Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Subject: Complaints against ADNDRC on Case no. HK-080####
To: [Complainant A]


15 March 2010

[Complainant A]

Dear Sirs,

Re: Complaints against ADNDRC on Case no. HK-080####

I refer to the above-captioned case and the complaints you made against the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (Hong Kong Office) ("ADNDRC") during the case proceedings. A Special Investigation Council has been formed and asked to consider whether there has been an efficient dealing with the complaints and, if not, whether the system can be improved.

I am writing on behalf of the Special Investigation Council.

Please be informed that our investigation has been completed subject only to matters you wish to bring to our attention.

Please also note that, in order to proceed further with your complaints, we need to know:

(1) the identity/identities, i.e. name(s), gender(s), nationality/nationalities of the person(s) in charge of your company, [Complainant A]; and

(2) your physical address and telephone number to allow us to get in touch with you.

You may write to us and provide us with the proof of the above-mentioned information, i.e. a copy of your identification card, either by post or email. Please be assured that your information will be kept confidential.

Your prompt reply is appreciated.

Yours faithfully,



Michael Hartmann
Chairman
ADNDRC Special Investigation Council

c.c. ADNDRC (Hong Kong Office)


==============================================

My goodness, we're still talking on this topic!

I am NOT a complainant in this case because I won my domain name dispute at both ADNDRC HK and WIPO. I am happy with the result of these 2 arbitrations.

However, I encourage Complainant A and Complainant B in this Investigation to write to the Investigation Council with their true identity to convince the Council that their complaints are genuine and persuasive.

[MDM]

Originally Posted by Giant

My goodness, we're still talking on this topic!

I am NOT a complainant in this case because I won my domain name dispute at both ADNDRC HK and WIPO. I am happy with the result of these 2 arbitrations.

However, I encourage Complainant A and Complainant B in this Investigation to write to the Investigation Council with their true identity to convince the Council that their complaints are genuine and persuasive.

The worst scenario to ADNDRC HK and certain involved parties for a 'genuinely conducted' Investigation which may subsequently be followed-up or reported by relevant bodies and authorities may be : certain parties be prosecuted criminally (or at least punished by their professional bodies), and the decision validity of all previous cases handled by ADNDRC HK are subject to challenge and decisions reversed, which means BAD news to respondents WINNING their cases unfortunately.

But unless the external authorities and forces really step in and force the results towards that end, otherwise, the reversion of decisions is unlikely to happen so the winning respondents should be pretty safe. Congrats to your successful ADNDRC HK case after good fighting for rights, and in tactfully requesting a 3-member panel otherwise you know the result if you did not object to the illegitimate, outrageous and direct assignment of David Kreider as sole panelist to your case initially by ADNDRC HK ignoring your legitimate 3-member panel request, despite you repeatedly opposed so ( http://www.idnforums.com/forums/141182-post44.html ).

For the "investigation", it is believed that the Investigation Committee itself should convince people and demonstrate that it possesses such “genuine and persuasive” quality of independence, integrity ... in conducting an impartial and creditable Investigation first, which from the posts in 70 http://www.idnforums.com/forums/158467-post70.html & 71 http://www.idnforums.com/forums/158468-post71.html in this thread, do not appear to exist.

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by singkey2010

I also agree this is a very good test case and the result was very important - and case handled very well (well done!).




-- MODs removed links to avoid link spam-- once post count has reached a qualitative level links will be restored

I was waiting to see what the Mod's made of this. I personally had come to the conclusion that singkey2010 was a Bot.

[MDM]

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/show...016#post160016

Originally Posted by Zak Muscovitch

Some of you will recall how back in October of 2009, ADNDRC issued a press release announcing how it appointed a special committee to investigate allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing in the administration of domain name disputes by the ADNDRC Hong Kong Office.

Has anybody heard anything further about this? I havn't, and it has been nearly seven months....

So I wrote ADNDRC a letter and asked for an update...

A copy of my letter can be found here.

The chairman of the "Investigation Committee" emailed in mid Mar 2010 to one of the complainants against ADNDRC HK advising that the "Investigation" was "almost complete" (but without contacting any of the various complainants before in their "Investigation").

See http://www.idnforums.com/forums/158467-post70.html (post 70), http://www.idnforums.com/forums/158468-post71.html (post 71) (and subsequent posts) (http://www.idnforums.com/forums/2153...idences-4.html ) for update.

The chairman, Michael Hartmann (夏正文) is currently a Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong and even used the Judiciary Dept's email in his email, but really cannot see any Justice and Integrity in the manner he and other Investigation members have been conducting the Investigation.

The purpose of his email appears to be one threatening one of the complainants and wished to close the case quick, the subject of investigation has also been distorted outrageously by Michael Hartmann in his Investigation. Probably they wish to settle furtively before the 2010 ADNDRC Conference be held in Beijing.

[Drewbert]

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announc...t-2-19apr13-en

19 April 2013

ICANN APPOINTS ADDITIONAL URS PROVIDER

Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) and ICANN have signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing ADNDRC as a Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) provider. ADNDRC is well known to the Internet community as an established Uniform Domain Name Dipute Resolution Policy (UDRP) provider, with offices in Beijing, HongKong, Seoul and Kuala Lumpur. It has a proven track record of administering UDRP cases since its appointment as a UDRP provider in 2001.

2nd verse, same as the first.