All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Frontier Compliance: A Communication System Emerging in Cyberspace
Unformatted Document Text:  22 analyses of UDRP decisions according to service providers, and the results seem to be consistent. The first systematic study of UDRP decisions was conducted by Mueller (2000), which analyzed 621 proceedings decided between December 1999 and June 2000. In his study, the rates of the favorable decisions for complainants were vastly different among the providers: 82% at WIPO, 81% at NAF, and 51% at eResolution. In this circumstance, the complainants would be reluctant to choose eResolution that tends to make decisions clearly in favor of the respondents. Mueller warned about the possibility of forum shopping, and the actual existence of forum shopping can be inferred from the market shares of each provider. WIPO decided 61% of the proceedings included in Mueller’s study, NAF decided 31%, CPR 1%, and eResolution 7%. Fees vary according to the provider: $2,000 for 1-2 domain names at CPR, $1,500 for 1-5 names at WIPO, $1,250 for 1-2 names, $1,150 for 1 domain at NAF. 26 The difference in the fees does not fully explain the difference in market share, because WIPO made the largest number of decisions despite the fact that its fees were higher than NAF and eResolution. More detailed and systematic analysis would be needed to explain the reasons of market share, but must of the difference seems to stem from forum shopping of the complainants as Mueller suggested, and at least the low share of eResolution seems to be mostly affected by its decision rates. In the UDRP system where the complainants select the provider, this forum shopping may seriously endanger the neutrality and independence of the dispute resolution system. Furthermore, the service providers have great incentives to make decisions in favor of the complainants, in order to attract more disputes and to make more profits. Failing this, a provider may not even be able to survive, and the fact that eResolution had to stop services in November 2001 due to the lack of proceedings vividly illustrates this problem. Changes in the decision trends of each provider and market shares further demonstrate the problem of forum shopping and its consequences. Comparing the result of Mueller’s study with the findings of later studies conducted by Geist (2001) and Woo (2002), which analyzed later decisions than the ones analyzed in Muller’s study, helps to point out the systematic bias of the UDRP. 27 In Geist’s study, market shares of the service providers are as follows: WIPO decided 58% of the proceedings, NAF 34%, eResolution 7%, and CPR 1%. This result is quite similar to the result of the Mueller’s study, with 3% increase for NAF and 3% decrease for WIPO. In Woo’s study, WIPO made the most decisions (56.9%), followed by NAF that made 38.7% of the decisions, 26 The reason why CPR has only 1% of market share seems to be partially due to the fact that it was provider that was approved last among the 4 providers thus was the least known one, and had the highest fees as well.

Authors: Woo, Jisuk.
first   previous   Page 22 of 27   next   last



background image
22
analyses of UDRP decisions according to service providers, and the results seem to be
consistent. The first systematic study of UDRP decisions was conducted by Mueller
(2000), which analyzed 621 proceedings decided between December 1999 and June
2000. In his study, the rates of the favorable decisions for complainants were vastly
different among the providers: 82% at WIPO, 81% at NAF, and 51% at eResolution. In
this circumstance, the complainants would be reluctant to choose eResolution that tends
to make decisions clearly in favor of the respondents. Mueller warned about the
possibility of forum shopping, and the actual existence of forum shopping can be
inferred from the market shares of each provider. WIPO decided 61% of the
proceedings included in Mueller’s study, NAF decided 31%, CPR 1%, and eResolution
7%. Fees vary according to the provider: $2,000 for 1-2 domain names at CPR, $1,500
for 1-5 names at WIPO, $1,250 for 1-2 names, $1,150 for 1 domain at NAF.
26
The
difference in the fees does not fully explain the difference in market share, because
WIPO made the largest number of decisions despite the fact that its fees were higher
than NAF and eResolution. More detailed and systematic analysis would be needed to
explain the reasons of market share, but must of the difference seems to stem from
forum shopping of the complainants as Mueller suggested, and at least the low share of
eResolution seems to be mostly affected by its decision rates. In the UDRP system
where the complainants select the provider, this forum shopping may seriously endanger
the neutrality and independence of the dispute resolution system. Furthermore, the
service providers have great incentives to make decisions in favor of the complainants,
in order to attract more disputes and to make more profits. Failing this, a provider may
not even be able to survive, and the fact that eResolution had to stop services in
November 2001 due to the lack of proceedings vividly illustrates this problem.
Changes in the decision trends of each provider and market shares further
demonstrate the problem of forum shopping and its consequences. Comparing the result
of Mueller’s study with the findings of later studies conducted by Geist (2001) and Woo
(2002), which analyzed later decisions than the ones analyzed in Muller’s study, helps
to point out the systematic bias of the UDRP.
27
In Geist’s study, market shares of the
service providers are as follows: WIPO decided 58% of the proceedings, NAF 34%,
eResolution 7%, and CPR 1%. This result is quite similar to the result of the Mueller’s
study, with 3% increase for NAF and 3% decrease for WIPO. In Woo’s study, WIPO
made the most decisions (56.9%), followed by NAF that made 38.7% of the decisions,
26
The reason why CPR has only 1% of market share seems to be partially due to the fact that it was
provider that was approved last among the 4 providers thus was the least known one, and had the highest
fees as well.


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 22 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.