Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements.
The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg