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

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
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) Response to INTA & the UDRP, Part Two
    posted by michael on Tuesday May 14 2002, @05:42AM

    mg writes "Earlier this week, Professor Milton Mueller posted his reaction to the recent International Trademark Association's response to scholarly work on the ICANN UDRP.

    I [Editor's note: Prof. Michael Geist, University of Ottawa] now provide my take (.pdf) on the INTA response to my Fair.com?: An Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP and its brief update, Fundamentally Fair.com? An Update on Bias Allegations and the ICANN UDRP.

    After a review of the INTA response, I felt that it would be useful to provide further background for those who are new to the issue. In particular, I provide further context on several INTA claims that may leave readers with a mistaken impression of my study along with my perspective on case allocation, provider bias, three member panels, and forum shopping."



    I believe that the INTA response includes several claims that may leave readers with a mistaken impression of my study. These include:
    • The response claims that I suggest that complainants should not win more than 50% of the time in order for a dispute resolution system to be fair. I do no such thing. The Update does note that all WIPO panelists with five or more single panel cases have ruled in favor of complainants at least 50% of the time, but nowhere do I say or infer that 50% is a benchmark for fairness.
    • The response claims that I make "bald assertions that there have been a 'plethora of inconsistent and clearly incorrect decisions'" but provide no footnote or other supporting reference. This too is incorrect as footnotes 84, 85, 86 of Fair.com provide support for these statements.
    • The response claims that I could "only come up with three or four cases where there is believed to be an incorrect or inconsistent decision." While it is true that the study only lists a small sample of cases, as INTA itself acknowledges, the study did not seek to review the merits of each case. The three or four cases were clearly meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
    • The response claims that I "touted inflated complainant winning percentages" in order to support my allegations of bias against respondents. This is absolutely incorrect. INTA has provided no support for any claims that any data was inflated. In fact, not only was all data presented as collected, but I have taken the unusual step of posting all data to the Internet for anyone to review.
    • The response claims that my conclusion that three-member panels are fairer than single-member panels is based on an incorrect inference that one-member panels are biased. I believe this mischaracterizes my findings. Nowhere in the study do I argue that single member panels are biased. In the case of three-member panels, I argue that they provide a fairer approach since they "would remove most provider influence over panelist selection and ensure better quality decisions by forcing panelists to justify their reasoning to their colleagues on the panel."
    My full response to the INTA paper, of which the above is a summary, can be found here.
    Also, here are links to:
    The INTA paper and my original papers: Fair.com? and Fundamentally Fair.com?

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ 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  
  • ICANNWatch.org
  • here
  • The INTA paper
  • Fair.com?
  • Fundamentally Fair.com?
  • his reaction
  • Michael Geist
  • my take
  • INTA response
  • Fair.com?: An Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP
  • Fundamentally Fair.com? An Update on Bias Allegations and the ICANN UDRP
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Response to INTA & the UDRP, Part Two | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 2 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    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: Response to INTA & the UDRP, Part Two
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Thursday May 30 2002, @11:04AM (#6578)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    What has defending ICANN got to do with INTA anyway? Surely their rallying to their defence proves they work hand-in-glove to protect trademark rights over-and-above the rights of the consumer and small business person?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 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