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](https://www.michaelgeist.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Project.png)
Law Bytes
Episode 210: Meredith Lilly on the Trade Risks Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax and Mandated Streaming Payments
byMichael Geist
![Episode 210: Meredith Lilly on the Trade Risks Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax and Mandated Streaming Payments](https://www.michaelgeist.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Project.png)
July 15, 2024
Michael Geist
June 24, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 210: Meredith Lilly on the Trade Risks Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax and Mandated Streaming Payments
Abandoning Institutional Neutrality: Why the University of Windsor Encampment Agreements Constrain Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 209: Peter Menzies on Why the Canadian News Sector is Broken and How to Fix It
Why the University of Windsor Encampment Agreement Violates Antisemitism and Academic Freedom Standards
Know When to Fold Em: The Big Risk Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax Bet
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.