All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Frontier Compliance: A Communication System Emerging in Cyberspace
Unformatted Document Text:  23 eResolution 3.9% and CPR 0.4%. Here NAF’s market share has even more increased, and eRsolution’s market share has greatly decreased. 28 These results seem to be attributable to the fact that NAF has the highest complainant-winning rate among the providers as well as to the fact that NAF was preferred by the U.S. trademark holders because it resides in the U.S. and was engaged in strong marketing campaign that promoted their decisions in favor of the trademark holders (Geist, 2001). Examining decision rates of each provider during the same periods of the studies makes the above explanation a natural one. In Geist’s data, complainant-wining rate of WIPO is the same 82% as that found in Mueller’s data, while that of NAF increased from 81% to 83% and that of eResolution increased from 51% to 63%. In Woo’s data as well, NAF has the highest decision rate favorable for the complainants, which is 83.4%. The complainant-winning rate of WIPO also remained high as 79.3%. On the other hand, eResolution made decisions quite evenly, making 52.5% of the decisions in favor of the complainants and 47.4% in favor of the defendants. In addition, the service providers differ in terms of their way of dealing with default cases. WIPO and NAF consider default cases and non-default cases in a clearly different way. In WIPO, 93.4% of the default proceedings were made in favor of the complainants (Woo, 2002). NAF shows even more striking result: 97.6% of the proceedings were made in favor of the complainants. However, eResolution did not show any significant difference between way they handled default cases and other cases. This does not only show that service providers are handling similar kind of cases in a different way, but that it was not impossible for the panels to make their own decisions without entirely relying on the contents of the complaints, which are naturally one-sided arguments of the complainants. The service providers seem to have competed to attract their clients, i.e., trademark holders, by increasing or maintaining their decision rate favorable to complainants. But even with this increase found in the Woo’s data, eResolution still had relative disadvantage in that sense compared to other providers. The forum shopping that Mueller noted had such a serious consequence that the service provider that was making decisions in a relatively more favorable way for respondents finally ceased to take any more proceedings. And the difference in decision rates between service providers certainly explains why NAF managed to increase its market share while eResolution did not have enough clients (complainants) and thus went out of business of domain name dispute resolution altogether. Related to the forum shopping, a question remains as to in what way the 27 Geist analyzed 3,094 decisions that were made by July 2001. 28 Thus, it could be argued that eResolution’s ceasing of its service was soon to come at the time.

Authors: Woo, Jisuk.
first   previous   Page 23 of 27   next   last



background image
23
eResolution 3.9% and CPR 0.4%. Here NAF’s market share has even more increased,
and eRsolution’s market share has greatly decreased.
28
These results seem to be
attributable to the fact that NAF has the highest complainant-winning rate among the
providers as well as to the fact that NAF was preferred by the U.S. trademark holders
because it resides in the U.S. and was engaged in strong marketing campaign that
promoted their decisions in favor of the trademark holders (Geist, 2001).
Examining decision rates of each provider during the same periods of the studies
makes the above explanation a natural one. In Geist’s data, complainant-wining rate of
WIPO is the same 82% as that found in Mueller’s data, while that of NAF increased
from 81% to 83% and that of eResolution increased from 51% to 63%. In Woo’s data as
well, NAF has the highest decision rate favorable for the complainants, which is 83.4%.
The complainant-winning rate of WIPO also remained high as 79.3%. On the other
hand, eResolution made decisions quite evenly, making 52.5% of the decisions in favor
of the complainants and 47.4% in favor of the defendants. In addition, the service
providers differ in terms of their way of dealing with default cases. WIPO and NAF
consider default cases and non-default cases in a clearly different way. In WIPO, 93.4%
of the default proceedings were made in favor of the complainants (Woo, 2002). NAF
shows even more striking result: 97.6% of the proceedings were made in favor of the
complainants. However, eResolution did not show any significant difference between
way they handled default cases and other cases. This does not only show that service
providers are handling similar kind of cases in a different way, but that it was not
impossible for the panels to make their own decisions without entirely relying on the
contents of the complaints, which are naturally one-sided arguments of the complainants.
The service providers seem to have competed to attract their clients, i.e., trademark
holders, by increasing or maintaining their decision rate favorable to complainants. But
even with this increase found in the Woo’s data, eResolution still had relative
disadvantage in that sense compared to other providers. The forum shopping that
Mueller noted had such a serious consequence that the service provider that was making
decisions in a relatively more favorable way for respondents finally ceased to take any
more proceedings. And the difference in decision rates between service providers
certainly explains why NAF managed to increase its market share while eResolution did
not have enough clients (complainants) and thus went out of business of domain name
dispute resolution altogether.
Related to the forum shopping, a question remains as to in what way the
27
Geist analyzed 3,094 decisions that were made by July 2001.
28
Thus, it could be argued that eResolution’s ceasing of its service was soon to come at the time.


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 23 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.