Also of interest to ICANNeers, Marc Schneiders sends this along: >Do you want to keep the right to vote for directors of ICANN, >the body that manages domains and IP addresses (and interferes >through trademark issues with free speech...)? Then, please, sign up >at >http://www.icannatlarge.com/
And the .kids (or .kids.us) hearing has been rescheduled to TODAY at 10:00 am, in room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building. -Declan --- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:43:30 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Geist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Fair.com Update - The Deal with Defaults Declan, Hope all is well. I thought you and your readers might be interested in an update to my Fair.com study that generated considerable discussion last summer on Thursday. The update, which now covers 4,332 ICANN UDRP cases (all cases decided as of February 18, 2002) provides the first comprehensive look at default vs. non-default cases under the ICANN UDRP. It can be found online at http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/fairupdate.pdf The original Fair.com study at http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf All the updated data, searchable by panelist, at http://www.udrpinfo.com A column providing the highlights is at <http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.ArticleNews/relatedstories/gam/20020307/TWGEIS> The update reaches the following conclusions: 1. There have been no changes in forum shopping concerns raised in original study as caseload and case outcomes remain roughly the same. Moreover, in the intervening period, eResolution, the arbitration provider most affected by forum shopping, has gone bankrupt. 2. Case allocation concerns have gone from bad to worse. NAF's top six panelists have now decided 56.4% of their single panel cases with complainants winning over 95% of the time. WIPO's two respondent-friendly panelists have still yet to receive a case (2250 cases and counting) and the provider's 124 panelists with 5 or more single panel cases have now all ruled in favor of complainants at least 50% of the time. 3. Default cases constitute 54% of all cases. Contrary to some claims, there are differences between providers on default cases. NAF rules in favor of complainants 98% of the time in default cases, followed by WIPO at 92% and eResolution at 79%. In fact, several leading NAF panelists have never ruled in favor of a respondent in a default case. 4. There is no significant difference in percentages when accounting solely for non-default cases (as NAF and other critics argued was necessary). In single panel non-default cases, WIPO and NAF both rule in favor of complainants around 70% of the time. By contrast, eResolution rules in favor of complainants 50% of the time. This is virtually the same percentage difference as when all cases (default and non-default) are examined. Similarly, the difference between single panel and three-member panel in non-default cases remains unchanged from the overall numbers. Complainants, who still surprisingly request the majority of three-member panel cases, win 68% of single panel cases but only 46% of three-member panel cases. The 22% differential is nearly identical to the 23% differential when all cases are accounted for. In other words, claims that provider and panel composition differences can be explained by the inclusion of default cases are simply wrong. There are (or at least were) critical differences between providers and between the outcome in single vs. three-member panel cases. Regards, MG -- ********************************************************************** Professor Michael A. Geist University of Ottawa Law School, Common Law Section 57 Louis Pasteur St., P.O. Box 450, Stn. A, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319 Fax: 613-562-5124 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.lawbytes.ca ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
