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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, at 15:44 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:
> 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. 

You are right, statistics can prove anyything you like. To let them
prove what you are saying, we have to assume that all those
complainants (I mean they chose the venue) who went for eResolution
were ****ing stupid, at least after it became clear that eResolution
more often decided in favour of complainant. Have you any statistics
to explain that?

Of course most people who have been studying the UDRP have also been
looking at many individual cases. And have seen how serious the
arbitrators followed the rules and explained their conclusions in
their decisions. eResolutions has never been ridiculed for decisions,
like e.g. WIPO has been. 

It is the interpretation that counts, and that requires valid
concepts. In law this means 'fair'.

"They hang more killers in Texas", doesn't mean a thing. It certainly
does not mean that the Texas legal system is morally better. If I may
say so.

Have a quiet sailing.

--
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