Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)

["Louise Ferguson" <louise.f@ntlworld.com>]

Dave crocker wrote:
> Besides needing a procedure for removing authorization of a UDRP service
> provider, there needs to be a procedure for removal of UDRP
> arbitrators.  The service providers tend to be little more than brokers
for
> service.  The "judges" are independent and vary in their quality.  When a
> problem is not inherent in UDRP
> policy, it appears to lie with individual judges.

In a conversation I had with Francis Gurry (assistant DG WIPO) a couple of
weeks ago, he stated "the performance of individual panellists is under
continuous quality review". Has any panellist disappeared from the list yet?
Removal would be interpreted as an admission that their work was not up to
scratch, so might take place later rather than sooner (after the rogue
decisions). How is the 'quality' of a panellist measured? If it is WIPO that
measures their quality (on the basis of decisions filed? - what other
evidence is there?), where does that leave WIPO's claim that it is merely
administering a service?
.
I believe that some panellists are not at all au fait with the Internet.
What are the selection criteria? Does anybody know? Is there any training?
Is the source of panellists for each organisation determining the
differences in outcomes?

With WIPO's increasing workload - due to forum shopping - it may either have
to delay cases or hire more panellists. What are the implications for
panellist quality and decision quality? Or will all (other) panellists end
up working for WIPO, resulting in changes in decision stats?

Apologies for so many question marks, but the subject does throw up so many
questions to which we don't seem to know the answers.
Louise Ferguson
>
>
> >- Decisions that no reasonable person would challenge or call "bad"
> >- Decisions that some reasonable persons would challenge or call "bad"
>
> d/
>
> >- Decisions that are subsequently reversed in a court of law.
>
> A sense of the percentages of these, out of the total, would be enormously
> helpful.

>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html