I fully agree with you and this is where the breach of the auDRP Rules 
comes in.

The wording of a Statutory Declaration was either changed or misquoted 
altering its meaning, large slabs of the Response have been completely 
removed or ignored and critical evidence such as tax invoices, partly 
developed websites and communications from auDA were dismissed.

It appears that the panellist even created evidence on behalf of the 
complainant, as information was included, that the complainant 
themselves did not include and which they would not ever include as it 
was factually incorrect.

Despite this, it appears that no one has the authority or willingness to 
deal with the issue.

Don't forget, that the domain name was only registered after having had 
many detailed conversation with auDA to ensure that we could register it 
and that we have written correspondence from auDA about an almost 
identical website which they state is compliant with their policy.

Andrew

David Keegel wrote:
> If you proved to the panellist that you have rights to and legitimate
> interests in respect of the domain name, then you should have been able
> to keep the domain name.
>