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) Gatwick goings-on
    posted by jon on Thursday October 28 2004, @11:10AM

    Back in 2001, Michael Geist examined the case allocation data, and concluded that WIPO's UDRP panelist selection process was "heavily biased toward ensuring that a majority of cases are steered toward complainant-friendly panelists." Now comes The Register's Kieren McCarthy, with the news that nothing has changed.



    McCarthy's story concerns British airport operator BAA's attempt to divest one Bob Larkin of the domain Gatwick.com. Larkin paid for a three-person panel, in which the complainant chooses one panelist, and respondent another, and WIPO provides a list of five from which the parties choose a third. Complainants, natch, tend to pick panelists who they think will be sympathetic to them; respondents do the same. The third panelist, in theory, is the neutral. In this case, WIPO's list of five wasn't well-vetted. It included a lawyer who had already been disqualified for conflict of interest; when WIPO finally replaced her on the list, it picked a lawyer who had represented BAA in a different domain dispute. More fundamentally, four of the five on the list had been chosen repeatedly by complainants in the past, and never by respondents; the fifth had never been chosen by either, but had ruled for complainants in 88% of the cases he had sat on as a single panelist.

    There aren't that many WIPO panelists out there who rule more often for respondents than for complainants. (That may have a lot to do with how WIPO screens its panelists to begin with.) As of 2002, when Prof. Geist last compiled the data, there were no more than 20 people on WIPO's panelist list who had sat on at least two domain-name disputes, and had ruled for respondent in more than half. (They included ICANNwatch's own Milton Mueller and Michael Froomkin.) At least two of the group had never been chosen by WIPO for a single-member panel, and had participated solely by virtue of having been chosen by respondents for three-member panels; none was in the elite group of 120+ whom WIPO had tapped for single-member panels five times or more. WIPO may now have caught on that if it declines to list these folks for three-member panels either, it need not worry about their ever participating in cases and bollixing up the domain-name works.

     
      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  
    · Michael Froomkin
    · Milton Mueller
    · The Register (UK)
    · UDRP
    · concluded
    · The Register
    · nothing has changed
    · More Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) stories
    · Also by jon
     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Gatwick goings-on | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 4 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.
    gatwick goings-on
    by para_dan on Thursday October 28 2004, @11:59PM (#14392)
    User #4024 Info
    The Register article raises some interesting questions regarding WIPO rulings precedents being set by the decision of Prof. Cornish in the cases of juliebrown.com and celinedion.com. That is to say Prof. Cornish didn't follow the wording of the UDRP to the letter. The case of brucespringsteen.com as arbitrated by Michael Froomkin and Gordon Harris shows what happens in these cases when the UDRP wording is followed exactly - the complainant loses. Wonder what the chances are of that decision setting a WIPO precedent...?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Dumbth
    by jberryhill on Saturday November 06 2004, @02:29PM (#14428)
    User #3013 Info
    There aren't that many WIPO panelists out there who rule more often for respondents than for complainants. (That may have a lot to do with how WIPO screens its panelists to begin with.) I fail to understand the significance of that statement. UDRP complaints are not filed against a random sample of domain names. UDRP complaints are filed against a subfractional percent of domain names where at least someone thinks there is a grounds for a dispute. A substantial proportion of those cases are defaults by the domain registrant. In the majority of cases where the respond (a) responds, and (b) selects a three member panel, the respondent prevails (65% of the time by Milton Mueller's reckoning). I completely fail to understand what the win/loss ratio, apart from any other considerations, says about whether the process is "fair". Guess what? Most criminal juries find the defendant guilty. Does that mean juries are biased? Now, the conclusions about panelist selection may be correct here. But that doesn't justify the use of outstandingly stupid logic.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:Dumbth by jon Thursday November 18 2004, @09:54AM
    By the way
    by jberryhill on Wednesday November 17 2004, @07:51AM (#14443)
    User #3013 Info


    The case was decided in favor of the domain name registrant, for those interested in facts.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    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