Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

["Paul Cotton" <paulc@joinin.com>]

Kent,

The fact that NAF might mirror the WIPO "favor tm holders, get more cases"
model is more indicative of their seeing the path to riches than for them
being more objective.  When they are rewarded financially for favoring one
party over another in full knowledge that they are not reviewed then
objectivity is the first thing to go.

You are correct, the UDRP is designed to deal with "obvious cases", but how
many times have the panelists rejected the chance to make a decision because
they see the domain and circumstances as not being an "obvious case"?

Regards

Paul Cotton


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp


On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:22:39PM -0000, Paul Cotton wrote, in reply to
John Berryhill:
> > one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it
comes
> > to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
>
> I understand your points entirely - the problem is that such discrepancy
> exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers may choose to
> exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).

The fact that there is a discrepancy illustrates a strong bias on
eResolutions part, not bias on the part of the other providers (which,
at 82% and 82.9% in favor of plaintiffs were essentially equal).

Many people don't understand the simple statistical fact that an 82%
conviction rate says absolutely nothing about the quality of the system:
the system is designed to deal with obvious cases, and so a high rate of
success for plaintiffs is the expected (and desired) result.  Similarly,
you cannot judge the quality of a doctor by the survival rate of his
patients: a great doctor that takes only difficult cases might have a
50% survival rate for his patients; a lousy doctor that primarily takes
easy cases might have a 95% recovery rate.  If you went by the
statistics you would go to the lousy doctor every time, and be part of
his 5% failure rate.

The fact that the other two providers had almost identical conviction
rates is actually an indication that they were following more objective
criteria than eResolution.

--
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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