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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 08:02:54PM -0500, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5 Dec 2001, at 15:44, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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. 
> > 
> 
> Or that both are equally biased toward the Plaintiff.  Sheesh.

Of *course* they are biased towards the plaintiff.  That is an obvious,
expected, and desired result of the design of the system -- it is
supposed to catch *obvious cases of abuse*, and with that as a
fundamental premise, decisions for the plaintiff *should* be in the vast
majority.  If they weren't, the system would be a clear failure.  (In
fact, of course, a large percentage of cases are simply not contested.)

The fact that eResolution tried to tilt the balance the other way is
indicative of a problem with eResolution, not a problem with the others.

This is not to say that the UDRP is perfect, of course.  But the
statistics are simply not evidence for either unfairness or bias. 

-- 
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