Hi folks, There was a very good article in the Wall Street Journal today discussing the turmoil in the arbitration world, in particular with NAF: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125548128115183913.html?mod=googlenews_wsj "Banks "don't need the taint that comes with mandatory arbitration." "While telling consumers that it was an impartial arbitrator, NAF worked closely with creditors, the regulator claimed, including drafting claims against consumers." "Former arbitrators, a congressional subcommittee, consumers and government suits are now alleging that NAF has been systematically ruling against consumers for years." "A congressional subcommittee, which began an investigation last year to study the fairness of mandatory arbitration, concluded in July that the current arbitration system is "ripe for abuse." Arbitration, as "operated by NAF, does not provide protection for those consumers," the committee said." "Before that case, she had ruled in favor of credit-card companies 18 consecutive times, she told the committee. She says she finished several pending NAF cases after she ruled for the card holder, but then wasn't given more cases. The official reason the NAF gave for canceling more work was scheduling conflicts. But Ms. Bartholet said in an interview that an NAF manager told her she was likely removed because she ruled for the debtor." In light of this, what is ICANN doing to ensure that UDRP is conducted in a neutral manner? Ideally it should be optional, unless *both* parties agree to it (i.e. parties should be permitted to choose the courts, a superior method for complex matters, if they feel it is appropriate). We have had NAF openly admit (in their IRT comments) that: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00178.html "Panelists have taken the opportunity, over time, to agree with those complainants and broaden the scope of the UDRP, but it started out as a mechanism only for clear cut cases of cybersquatting." It's clearly in the financial interests of UDRP providers (and panelists) to continue to expand the scope of cases and tilt their decisions towards complainants in order to encourage more complaints overall, and more complaints that involve either themselves as panelists or their UDRP provider ("forum shopping"). This represents a perversion of the system of justice that domain registrants rely upon. ICANN staff and the GSNO should prepare an issues report, and perhaps fund independent scholarly research like that conducted by Professor Michael Geist in the past: http://www.udrpinfo.com/ Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/