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
  • MŁller-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)

    This discussion has been archived.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
    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.
    by jberryhill on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:29PM (#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 ]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  
    by jon on Thursday November 18 2004, @08:54AM (#14452)
    User #20 Info
    Donít hold back, John; tell us what you really think. :-) Itís correct, of course, that we canít reach a conclusion as to whether the process is ďfairĒ merely by looking at the win-loss record, since we donít know what percentage of complainants would win in an ideal world. The data indicate that complainants win rather less often when they face three-member panels rather than one-member panels, controlling for default rates. Those numbers donít tell us which of the two processes is more fair; maybe complainants should win more often. In fact, looking at other factors, itís sensible to conclude that the three-member panel process is more ďfairĒ: that process involves more deliberation and the selection of panelists is not as skewed. Weíve still got no basis, though, for saying that either process is ďfairĒ in an absolute sense. Indeed, we have reason to think neither one is; WIPO panelists are predominantly intellectual property lawyers who, in their day jobs, represent trademark holders. I suggested in the language you quote that that fact may have a lot to do with the overall results of their decision-making. Iíll stand by that.

            For what itís worth, the most recent data I can find indicate that in WIPO proceedings, complainants win 48% of the time in contested, three-member proceedings. Those panelists who rule more often for respondents tend to be ones whom WIPO declines to assign to single-member panels, so the contested, three-member proceedings tend to be the only ones they sit on. The larger point of my story related to the dispute providerís reluctance to assign its more complainant-friendly panelists to actually hear disputes. One anecdote doesnít establish that, but Michael Geistís comprehensive work surely did.
    [ 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