Theo,
Thanks. That wasn't my question, though; I know how to find decisions (and the statistics page). The question was whether this is a tally of decisions per month, or filings per month. (The statistics page does not say.) If it is filings, it gives us a look at the recent filing behavior of complainants. If it is decisions, then it reflects filings that were made some months ago. These could include numerous filings based on investigations that took place prior to May 25. In any event, the effect of the partial WHOIS blackout is not necessarily a precipitous change, and not necessarily one reflected in such a blunt-force statistic as number of cases (filed/decided?) per month. In my view, it is more likely a degradation over time (as third party WHOIS databases degrade in accuracy and completeness) and a constellation of secondary effects (in addition to those mentioned, fewer attempts to negotiate a resolution prior to filing (since one would have little idea who one would be dealing with), higher expenses associated with making a case, a possible uptick in litigations (due to changing costs and availability of information), a possibility that registries and registrars will have to deal with litigations in a number of ways (discovery requests, liability issues, in rem cases (cases against the domain name rather than the registrant)), etc.
As for how you determine #1 (The potential complainant won't be able to tell whether the registrant may have a legitimate interest in the domain name, and whether that right predates the complainant's rights. This could result in cases being filed that wouldn't be filed with better information.) The identity of the registrant is key, along with the date the domain name was registered by (or transferred to) the registrant), and the contents of the website (if there is one). All of these would be weighed and considered, along with any information one could glean based on this data. But without the name, it's much harder to make a reasoned judgment call.
If the registrant's business name (or more rarely, personal name) is identical or related to the domain name, that could be an indicator of legitimate rights in the domain. This could then lead to an investigation to learn more about the registrant. Depending on the investigation, it could be the end of the case, or it could make the case stronger. More information will also help the complainant feel more comfortable about contacting the registrant to see if an amicable resolution can be reached. This can also help avoid potential RDNH cases, which will be less obvious and harder to identify now.
Cybersquatting is a problem for a lot of actors. However, brandowners are at the "tip of the spear" in many respects. Those other actors depend in significant part on brandowners' efforts to monitor, investigate and shut down cybersquatters -- because it's the companies' trademarks that are being squatted. There are a variety of avenues to shut down cybersquatters, and the UDRP is a primary avenue. A lot of cybersquatting situations involve considerably more than cybersquatting, such as fake websites and emails using stolen content, phishing, spearphishing, fraud, theft, counterfeiting, distribution of malware, spam, etc. This could suggest other avenues aside from UDRP as better choices to respond, including providing information for civil or criminal investigations, alerting registrars to Terms of Service violations, etc. Precisely because it can be complex, the crippling of any one solution vector could have secondary effects. Precisely because its complex, we all have to work harder to understand it and keep up with it.
While the brandowners are the ones engaged in enforcement, it's the end-users who are the victims. Whether it's the use of a typosquatted domain to fool a bank into sending money to a fraudulent bank account, the theft of content which is then used to defraud consumers, redirecting consumers to dangerous sites or to sites selling counterfeit goods, etc., etc.
Best regards,
Greg
.