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
The Exemption Illusion: Why the Government’s Plan to Fast Track Bill C-34’s Kids’ Social Media Ban Means No Standards, No Privacy Review, and No Enforcement 
Unpacking Bill C-34: My Appearance on the Globe and Mail’s The Decibel Podcast 
Liberal MP: Lawful Access “Has Nothing to Do With the Privacy of People and Their Information” 
The Law to Be Named Later: Bill C-34 Punts 50 Key Decisions to Cabinet and a Digital Safety Commission That Does Not Yet Exist 
Everything All At Once: Bill C-34 Combines Platform Duties, a Kids’ Social Media Ban, AI Chatbot Regulation, and a Powerful Digital Safety Commission Into a Risky “Trust Us” 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.