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

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

At 5:34 PM -0800 5/12/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>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.

But there is one fault in your argument. You're assuming, quite wrongfully,
that a high percentage of the case are bought by complainants that have an
*obvious case of abuse*.

Was the case the UDRP *caught* - bodacious-tatas.com and *obvious case of
abuse* ???

>If they weren't, the system would be a clear failure.  (In
>fact, of course, a large percentage of cases are simply not contested.)

In fact, of course, that doesn't prove anything, other than many people are
confused as hell when they find themselves on the receiving end of a UDRP,
by a complainant they didn't even know of beforehand, and probably think
there's no way the complaint would stand up in court.

>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.

I was going to write that it amazes me that you can write such bull and
keep a straight face. Then I reminded myself that it's Kent doing tha
talking, and he can write ANYTHING and keep a straight face.

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

I can guarantee  that a one-by-one analysis of all cases - with access to
all material - by a panel of independent, knowledgeable people would bring
to light a huge list of bad decisions, mostly for the complainant.

And once one bad decision appears, most of the other WIPO and NAF panelists
jump on it and use it as precendent for *further* bad decisions.

-- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
--
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