In the summer of 2001, I published a study on the panelist allocation practices of domain name dispute resolution providers. The study – Fair.com – found troubling evidence of systemic unfairness in the process. Zak Muscovitch has published an updated study that finds that the concerns remain, with one panelist alone handling nearly 10% of the almost 10,000 cases heard by the National Arbitration Forum.
Study on NAF Domain Name Dispute Resolution Finds Disproportionate Panelist Allocation
3 Comments
Recent Posts
You Can’t Put the Toothpaste Back in the Tube: Why the Government’s Reported “Temporary” Plan for a Kids’ Social Media Ban Would Mean Mandated ID for Everyone 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 271: Taking Stock of a Wild Week in Canadian Digital Policy With the Online Streaming Reversal, AI Strategy Release, and Lawful Access Review 
Canadian American Business Council on Bill C-22: It “Threatens Our Bilateral Partnership on Data Security” 
AI for All, Details to Follow: Government Releases a Big-Spending AI Strategy That Is Still Short on the Specifics That Matter 
New Privacy Rights in the Morning, Mandatory Metadata Retention in the Afternoon: How Bill C-22 Undercuts the AI Strategy Before It Launches
Retired
Yes, but nine years ago your main problem was that your attempt to administer claims was a failure. What have you failed at now?
Why not look for the simpler explanations first?
A big piece of the imbalance in number claims assigned seems to be geography. There are vastly more cases brought in the US, so it’s no surprise that the whole top 5 list is American.
That’s not “cloak and dagger”, that’s simple stats.
I’d rather see some analysis that focuses on the “of the 30 potential American assignees, a small number see most cases”. Perhaps they are the acknowledged experts in the field? Perhaps there are still further geographical or availability issues at work here – why assign a California-based reviewer to a case where both parties are based in the East coast time zone?
Are we so bored that we’ve come to seeing conspiracies where one doesn’t exist?
The examination, as presented, doesn’t really say much… Was there an examination of why certain panelists were assigned so often, or so infrequently? For instance, if these people are part-timers, perhaps Ms Johnson does a lot of cases simply because she isn’t otherwise occupied, or the cases that she’s had are not all that complex and are dealt with quite quickly whereas others deal with more complex cases which take longer to resolve.