theoretical

I have enormous respect for you John, and I am certainly frustrated by decisions like the one in Honey.in, but over 90% of the disputes in the .in registry are for obvious trademark violations and squatting. The remaining 10% of cases are troubling in their lack of concern over domainer's rights to the names, but they are the vast minority of disputes. To claim the entire registry is a racket is libelous in regards to NIXI and harmful to investors and developers of .in domain names, especially considering your status in the domain community.

I also disagree with the claim that you, as a respondent, aren't expected to respond, but it simply is at the arbitrator's choosing as to the timeframe and conditions of the communication from the respondent as evidenced by essentially every single dispute finding I've read.

There were a number of disputes submitted by one company which should have addressed their concerns during the sunrise period but is now making a number of claims. They are not the first and they are likely not the only company that will do so. It is certainly troubling but it is not the end of the world as we know it, either. I think members of the domain community like you should bring these issues to light but in a positive way and also bring them directly to NIXI so that they have an opportunity to address these concerns.

But honestly, there have been just as many horrible decisions in UDRP disputes in recent history as there have been INDRP cases. We don't say .com is worthless because the UDRP process doesn't seem consider the rights of domain holders and names are being ripped from .com domain owners in frightening numbers.

I appreciate your input into this discussion but I reject your claim that the whole .in extension is worthless.