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

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

At 12:11 PM 9/4/00 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>At 00:22 01/09/2000 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>If it is even one, it's bad news. However, I count more than 10, on a
>>cursory count.
>
>I think one of the missing pieces in the UDRP ruleset is a procedure for 
>the independent review of dispute resolution providers' track record, and 
>the resulting removal of a resolution service provider from ICANN's list 
>if the track record is not found satisfactory.

Formal, careful, on-going monitoring would be a extremely 
helpful.  Although based on well-established legal principals and 
practises, the "venue" of the UDRP makes it an experiment. Experiments need 
monitoring and refinement.

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.


>- 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