Hi folks, I was doing some research on NAF bias, and came across an interesting section of text in their Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Arbitration_Forum (I know, I know, Wikipedia isn't always reliable for information) However, the section on the "Proposed Arbitration Legislation" was educational. The relevant bill working its way through the government can be seen at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1020 One should read the "Findings" section very carefully, especially as extremists on the pro-complainant sides of the UDRP (and IRT) try to tilt things even further against due process. Almost every point can be seen when one thinks about the UDRP: e.g. ".....was intended to apply to disputes between commercial entities of generally similar sophistication and bargaining power." "a large and rapidly growing number of corporations are requiring millions of consumers and employees to give up their right to have disputes resolved by a judge or jury, and instead submit their claims to binding arbitration." "Few people realize, or understand the importance of the deliberately fine print that strips them of rights; and because entire industries are adopting these clauses, people increasingly have no choice but to accept them. They must often give up their rights as a condition of having a job, getting necessary medical care, buying a car, opening a bank account, getting a credit card, and the like. Often times, they are not even aware that they have given up their rights." "Private arbitration companies are sometimes under great pressure to devise systems that favor the corporate repeat players who decide whether those companies will receive their lucrative business." "Mandatory arbitration undermines the development of public law for civil rights and consumer rights, because there is no meaningful judicial review of arbitrators’ decisions. With the knowledge that their rulings will not be seriously examined by a court applying current law, arbitrators enjoy near complete freedom to ignore the law and even their own rules." "Mandatory arbitration is a poor system for protecting civil rights and consumer rights because it is not transparent. While the American civil justice system features publicly accountable decision makers who generally issue written decisions that are widely available to the public, arbitration offers none of these features." " Many corporations add to their arbitration clauses unfair provisions that deliberately tilt the systems against individuals, including provisions that strip individuals of substantive statutory rights, ban class actions, and force people to arbitrate their claims hundreds of miles from their homes. While some courts have been protective of individuals, too many courts have upheld even egregiously unfair mandatory arbitration clauses in deference to a supposed Federal policy favoring arbitration over the constitutional rights of individuals." Of course, there are appeals procedures for the UDRP (and URS) so there's not a 100% match (although there are clearly many parallel themes we've seen), but the "Findings" above demonstrate that there needs to be fairness, and lawmakers (and presumably courts) are sympathetic to cases where rights to due process are being abused. The more some people try to tilt the UDRP (or IRT) so that it favours extremists that will abuse it, the more likely it will one day be deemed invalid and unenforceable. The moderates on both side would be able to come up with fair rules for clearcut cases of cybersquatting. But, that can't happen when some folks are trying for "win-lose" scenarios, instead of "win-win" ones. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/