Hi folks, During one of the conference calls a few weeks ago, I mentioned the Moobitalk case in the French courts, which went through *multiple* levels of the courts, before the correct decision was achieved by the domain name owner, see: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a1... http://www.dreyfus.fr/en/marques/france-a-domain-name-transferred-by-udrp-de... Similarly, the important Tucows v Renner case went through multiple levels of the courts, going to the Ontario Court of Appeal: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca548/2011onca548.html Furthermore, Renner even appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, although their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, see: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2012/2012canlii28261/2012canlii28261.... fully exercising their rights to attempt to appeal to the highest possible court in the land. Today I stumbled upon another domain dispute in the German courts: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=55be88b3-76bd-41f8-ac0c-ea5522... while not involving a UDRP, apparently (the decision appears to have been anonymized, as the domain name isn't listed, and the parties aren't identified), it too went through multiple levels of the courts (the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, after starting in the Frankfurt Regional Court). These cases all demonstrate the inherent dangers of Option #2, which only permits the binding arbitration itself, and no further appeals. One of the protections that ensures due process and holds judges accountable is the ability to appeal their judgements. A judge or arbitrator or panelist whose decisions cannot be appealed is potentially far more dangerous, prone to reckless and incorrect decisions, because their level of accountability is lower (thus the higher level of scrutiny for Supreme Court judges in most nations, combined with the "dilution" of individual power by having 9 judges in total at the Supreme Court of Canada or the Supreme Court of the United States. Given the desire of most active judges to advance in their careers, to be appointed to a higher court, a history of overturned decisions on appeal does not bode well for them, and acts as a further incentive to get things right. These dangers aren't present with Option #1. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/