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
March 23, 2010
Share this post
3 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 272: Build Canada’s Lucy Hargreaves on Canada’s AI Strategy and the Need to Shift From Being Users to Builders
byMichael Geist

May 25, 2026
Michael Geist
May 11, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Midnight Madness: The Government Rushes Lawful Access Bill Through the House Without Debate or a Recorded Vote
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Bill C-36 Modernizes Canada’s Privacy Law, Then Delays It to 2030
Gary Anandasangaree’s Vic Toews Moment Shows the Government Has Lost Its Way on Lawful Access
Government Moves to Shut Down Lawful Access Hearing In Order To Fast Track Passing the Bill This Week
Canada’s Digital Super-Regulator: Bill C-36 Pushes Out the Privacy Commissioner and Hands Private Sector Privacy to an Overloaded Commission

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.