Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) INTA reveals its hand on the UDRP
    posted by Mueller on Saturday May 11 2002, @05:24AM

    INTA has released a perfunctory attempt to answer scholarly research proposing improvements in the UDRP. One report goes after my research report "Rough Justice" (Nov. 2000) and another takes on Prof. Michael Geist's "Fair.com?" The reports are written as short, partisan briefs, relying on rhetoric and assertion to make two basic points:

    1) The UDRP is perfect and needs no amendment, and

    2) Anyone who criticizes it is distorting facts and misusing statistics.

    INTA itself, one must concede, cannot be accused of misusing statistics, because its report is entirely data-free.

    Some aspects of the INTA report contain obvious errors that suggest a hasty reading and propagandistic intent.
    • The report begins by characterizing me as an “Assistant Professor.” I have been a tenured Associate Professor for five years. (They did, however, spell my name right.)
    • The report criticizes “Rough Justice” because it “does not consider the fact that disputed domain names are an extremely small percentage of all domain names registered.” (INTA, p. 2) Interesting. The small percentage of disputed names was, in fact, one of the main themes of the report. Here is a direct quote:

      Disputed names thus constitute somewhere between 0.00035 and 0.00028 of the total number of new registrations. In other words, for every registered name that causes a dispute, there are now about 3,500 new ones registered that do not. … Despite the massive amounts of publicity received by some major cases, abusive registration is a minor aspect of the DNS. Unrealistic notions about the true scope of the problem can result in bad law and bad policy. (p. 8)

      Rough Justice went out of its way to provide hard evidence for the fact that abusive registrations are a relatively small and declining problem. I am happy to see that INTA agrees with me. I look forward to their support for the immediate addition of new Top-level domains.

    Of course, the main issue posed both by Rough Justice and Fair.com was forum shopping and bias. The INTA report attempts to discredit the forum shopping argument by making a few purely verbal denials of the truth of thesis. Here INTA runs into a major problem: they want to quibble with the validity of statistical evidence offered by the academic research, but they offer no countervailing statistical analysis and no empirical evidence or statistical tests for their conclusions whatsoever. They simply say, “it ain’t so.” Here is an example of the quality of their argumentation:

    • The forum shopping argument suggests that dispute resolution service providers who have a higher win rate for Respondents will lose market share. The INTA report says “there is no discernable trend that eRes [is] losing market share.” Really? eResolution’s market share declined from 7% to 1% since Rough Justiuce was published and the company went out of business. Everyone knows this. Why would INTA publish such an obviously erroneous statement?
    • In regards to the failure of eResolutions, INTA says only, “there are lots of reasons why companies go out of business.” Indeed, there are. But if you are going to establish a case for an alternative theory, you need to pick one of those reasons and use real evidence to prove that it explains things better than the documented loss of market share, a loss that is clearly correlated (via statistical tests) with its higher win rate for Respondents.
    • INTA complains that statistical studies treat all cases as if they were “interchangeable;” i.e., that they all have identical fact patterns. I guess INTA’s legal practitioners don’t know much about statistical methods. The point is not whether all cases are the same, because obviously they are not. The point is whether there is any systematic difference in the type of fact patterns that go to eResolutions, WIPO and NAF. If there is, INTA ought to be able to prove it. They have access to the same statistical data that I do. If they can’t prove any difference in the type of cases going to the different providers, they shouldn’t suggest that there is one.
    • The report asserts that “reputation” not the win rate for complainants, controls the selection of a dispute resolution service provider. No evidence is provided to support this assertion. It just “sounds plausible’ – at least, to partisan lawyers who don’t want to face the facts about forum shopping.

    Why were these reports released now? Rough Justice was published over 18 months ago. And why does it adopt such a polarized tone? Rough Justice offered an even-handed assessment of the UDRP, praising some aspects of it. Perhaps it is related to the fact that an ICANN DNSO Task Force is considering what amendments might need to be made to the organization’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy for trademark – domain name disputes. By releasing these reports the IP lobby has indicated what its position in this process will be: they will favor the status quo and oppose any improvement whatsoever. And why shouldn’t they?

    Original Rough Justice report

    INTA's belated reply

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

      Related Links  
  • Original Rough Justice report
  • INTA's belated reply
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    INTA reveals its hand on the UDRP | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 6 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: INTA reveals its hand on the UDRP
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Monday May 13 2002, @02:06AM (#6273)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    INTA (plus many at ICANN and the Arbitration Forums, as well as a large proportion of Panelists)

    These 'people' are simply boot-licking, money-grabbing lying and hypocritical Corporate Dogs - their only interest is to protect their Corporate Big Business owners and investors...

    IF the UDRP was followed in a lot of cases, then a lot of bad decisions would never have been allowed. However, the UDRP still needs some revision and allowances MUST be made for those on low incomes or social benefits in regard to Forum Fees and timescales for Responses and submissions.

    I CANN hear them barking, but they have no teeth anymore...

    Correction, they do have teeth at the moment, but they are about to get broken - PERMANENTLY!


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Yo Adrian, give it a rest
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Thursday July 04 2002, @04:56AM (#7629)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    You talk out of your arse.

    INTA are arsehole too, so you're in good company.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com