New Study: Nearly 50% Of All UDRP Cases Decided By NAF Are Decided By 7 Panelists

A new study comissioned by attorney Zak Muscovitch shows that of all the UDRP cases decided by the National Arbitration Forum one of the two organizations that decide almost all UDRP cases, 7 panelist account for 50% of the decisions.

The NAF has administered approximately 17,000 disputes since 1999

The study published this morning by DNattorney.com

This study is really an update to one done by  in 2010.

“In March, 2010, DNattorney.com released a comprehensive study (the Original Study) on the concentration of appointments by the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) among a handful of arbitrators on its roster.”

“DNattorney.com undertook the Original Study in order to determine whether the appointments of single-member panels were random. Randomly selecting arbitrators would ensure fairness and a lack of arbitrariness in NAF decisions.”

“The Original Study, which can be seen at http://dnattorney.com/study, culled case-related data from the NAF’s website.

“This data revealed that there was a significant concentration of appointments among 10 adjudicators, one of which presided in approximately 966 cases of the nearly 10,000 heard to date, representing close to 10 per cent of UDRP proceedings at the NAF.

“In July, 2012, DNattorney.com updated the Original Study by gathering data on the 10 most appointed panellists identified previously. Of those panellists, three are no longer on the NAF’s roster, leaving seven comparisons to be made in the Current Study.”

“The Current Study used data from the NAF’s website and searchable databases.”

“All the data used was pulled on July 5, 2012. ”

“The total number of cases heard in the Current Study’s period was approximately 4,144. ”

“This number includes cases categorized as “Cancelled,” “Claim Denied,” “Split Decision,” and “Transferred,” meaning cases categorized as “Withdrawn” or “Pending” were not included in the Current Study. ”

“The Current Study did not distinguish between single-panel decisions and three-party panel decision but it is widely understood by domain name lawyers that the number of three-party panel decisions is a small fraction of disputes adjudicated by the NAF. ”

“For example, Paul Dorf, one of the panellists analyzed, was assigned to a total of 192 cases during the Current Study’s period of time, only two of which were three-party panels. ”

“In other words, of the total number of cases this panellist heard during the Current Study’s period, 99 per cent represented cases in which he was appointed by the NAF.”

“The Current Study broke down the overall number of UDRP disputes assigned to the panellists over the 10 year period comprising the Original Study by averages per year and per month. ”

“For example, in the Original Study, Carolyn Marks Johnson was assigned to approximately 966 cases over an approximate 10 year period, which equates to nearly 97 disputes per year and nearly 8 disputes per month. ”

“The Current Study then placed those annual and monthly figures alongside annual and monthly figures for the same panellists over a 28 month period (the time since the last report was released).

“Of the seven panellists comprising the Current Study, Carolyn Marks Johnson is the only one whose numbers stayed largely constant (increasing by one) – every single other panellist was appointed to markedly more UDRP cases on average per year and per month as compared to the previous report. This suggests that DNattorney.com’s Original Study did not impact the NAF’s practice of concentrating UDRP disputes among a handful of panellists.”

“Of the approximately 4,144 cases between March 5, 2010 and July 4, 2012, 7 mainly NAF-appointed panellists were appointed to 1,921 or 46% of all cases.”

“There are currently approximately 136 panellists on NAF’s roster. ”

“This means that 5% of panellists decided 46% of cases.

“The most-appointed arbitrator by the NAF was James A. Carmody, who decided approximately 354, or 8.5 percent of all cases.”

Comparisons between Original Study and Current Study
 

  • The new most appointed arbitrator by the NAF is James A. Carmody, who decided approximately 354, or 8.5 per cent of the 4,144 UDRP disputes in question during the Current Study’s period (March 5, 2010 – July 4, 2012).
  • The arbitrator with the highest spike in UDRP disputes is Karl V. Fink, who went from an approximate average of 50 cases per year in the Original Study’s period to nearly 132 cases per year in the Current Study’s study period. This equates to an approximate 11 UDRP disputes per month.
  • As mentioned, six of the seven arbitrators were appointed to markedly more UDRP disputes than they were in the Original Study’s period.

      1. Karl V. Fink went from hearing an average of 50 UDRP disputes per year in the Original Study’s period to an average of 132 UDRP disputes per year in the Current Study’s period. This represents an increase of approximately 82 cases per year.
      1. Tyrus R. Atkinson went from hearing an average of 62 UDRP disputes per year in the Original Study’s period to an average of 132 UDRP disputes per year in the Current Study’s period. This represents an increase of approximately 70 cases per year.
      1. James A. Carmody went from hearing an average of 89 UDRP disputes per year in the Original Study’s period to an average of 156 UDRP disputes per year in the Current Study’s period. This represents an increase of approximately 67 cases per year.
      1. Charles K. McCotter Jr. went from hearing an average of 82 UDRP disputes per year in the Original Study’s period to an average of 132 UDRP disputes per year in the Current Study’s period. This represents an increase of approximately 50 cases per year.
      1. John J. Upchurch went from hearing an average of 48 UDRP disputes per year in the Original Study’s period to an average of 96 UDRP disputes per year in the Current Study’s period. This represents an increase of approximately 48 cases per year.
    1.              Paul Dorf went from hearing an average of 44 UDRP disputes per year in the Original Study’s period to an average of 84 UDRP disputes per year in the Current Study’s period. This represents an increase of approximately 40 cases per year.

“All of the panellists mentioned are from the Unites States. ”

“When the Current Report was undertaken, there were 136 panellists on the NAF’s roster, 70 of whom were from the United States.”

“There were 33 other countries represented on NAF’s roster ”

Number of Cases Each Panellist from Last Report has been Appointed to between March 5, 2010 and July 4, 2012* Arbitrators are listed in order of most appointed in the top ten in previous report

 

Carolyn Marks Johnson Cancelled – 1
Claim Denied – 14
Split Decision – 1
Transferred – 206
TOTAL – 222PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES SINCE LAST STUDY* – 5.3
Since 03/10/2010
Since 10/11/2010
Since 11/02/2011
Since 03/12/2010
James A. Carmody Cancelled – 0
Claim Denied – 26
Split Decision – 2
Transferred – 328
TOTAL – 356PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES SINCE LAST STUDY* – 8.5
Since 03/08/2010
Since 01/28/2011
Since 03/08/2010
Charles K. McCotter Jr. Cancelled – 2
Claim Denied – 9
Split Decision – 1
Transferred – 287
TOTAL – 299PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES SINCE LAST STUDY* – 7.2
Since 12/02/2011
Since 04/07/2010
Since 03/22/2011
Since 03/11/2010
Ralph Yachnin No Longer on Roster No Longer on Roster
Tyrus R. Atkinson Jr. Cancelled – 0
Claim Denied – 11
Split Decision – 2
Transferred – 284
TOTAL – 297PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES SINCE LAST STUDY* – 7.1
Since 06/01/2010
Since 04/16/2010
Since 03/11/2010
Karl V. Fink Cancelled – 0
Claim Denied – 21
Split Decision – 2
Transferred – 296
TOTAL – 319PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES SINCE LAST STUDY* – 7.6
Since 04/07/2010
Since 10/28/2010
Since 03/10/2010
John J. Upchurch Cancelled – 1
Claim Denied – 18
Split Decision – 1
Transferred – 216
TOTAL – 236PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES SINCE LAST STUDY* – 5.6
Since 05/11/2012
Since 04/07/2010
Since 12/22/2011
Since 03/05/2010
Harold Kalina No Longer on Roster No Longer on Roster
Paul Dorf Cancelled – 0
Claim Denied – 7
Split Decision – 1
Transferred – 184
TOTAL – 192PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES SINCE LAST STUDY* – 4.6
Since 06/30/2010
Since 12/28/2011
Since 03/12/2010
Louis E. Condon No Longer on Roster No Longer on Roster

* Tallies do not include cases categorized as “withdrawn” or “pending” in NAF’s Searcheable Case database. Tallies may include three person panel decisions.

Comparisons between Previous Study and Current Study*

 

Panellist Average Cases Assigned in Previous Study – Previous Study Encompassed a 10 Year Period Average Cases Assigned in Current Study – Current Study encompassed a 28 Month Period
Carolyn Marks Johnson Average Assigned Per Year: 97 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 8 Cases
Average Assigned Per Year: 96 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 8 Cases
James A. Carmody Average Assigned Per Year: 89 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 7 Cases
Average Assigned Per Year: 156 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 13 Cases
Charles K. McCotter Jr. Average Assigned Per Year: 82 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 7 Cases
Average Assigned Per Year: 132 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 11 Cases
Ralph Yachnin Average Assigned Per Year: 72 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 6 Cases
No Longer on Roster
Tyrus R. Atkinson Jr. Average Assigned Per Year: 62 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 5 Cases
Average Assigned Per Year: 132 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 11 Cases
Karl V. Fink Average Assigned Per Year: 50 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 4 Cases
Average Assigned Per Year: 132 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 11 Cases
John J. Upchurch Average Assigned Per Year: 48 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 4 Cases
Average Assigned Per Year: 96 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 8 Cases
Harold Kalina Average Assigned Per Year: 46 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 4 Cases
No Longer on Roster
Paul Dorf Average Assigned Per Year: 44 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 4 Cases
Average Assigned Per Year: 84 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 7 Cases
Louis E. Condon Average Assigned Per Year: 44 Cases
Average Assigned Per Month: 4 Cases
No Longer on Roster

* Rounded to the nearest whole number.

Case Number
Decision Reached
Placed on Panel By
1351489 Claim Denied Nominated by Disputant
1422581 Claim Denied Nominated by Disputant
TOTAL
2 of 192

* Tallies do not include cases categorized as “withdrawn” or “pending” in NAF’s Searcheable Case database.

The Current Study was conducted by Michael Ettedgui, Student at Law, Osgoode Hall Law School.
Download in PDF format

 

Comments

  1. Orangelo says

    Gosh, I don’t even know where to start commenting this is so sickening. When will these corrupt systems of the NAF, WIPO, and ICANN end or be reformed?

    It sure looks skewed in many aspects, including against foreigners. It’s also so lopsided in favor of Complainants.

    I guess this should be no surprise when dealing with the NAF who have shown themselves to play dirty. Just look at them pulling out of credit card arbitration for screwing people over .

    http://www.businessweek.com/investing/wall_street_news_blog/archives/2009/07/big_arbitration.html

  2. John Berryhill says

    “As far as who owns it, I don’t know, you seem to, so enlighten us”

    I don’t know either. Their convoluted ownership structure seems designed to obscure that information. Maybe the panelists have an interest. Who knows?

  3. John Berryhill says

    ““convoluted ownership structure” is an understatement”

    I thought you’d like that, once you dug into it. There are cybersquatters whose corporate structures are less opaque.

  4. says

    Hello MHB,

    CyberCrooks point one finger at so called CyberSquatters , with four fingers pointing back at themselves. If you have enough money you can throw elections, buy elections and do it all supposedly legal.

    Why would intellectual Virtual business Foundations be protected under this same system ? We live in a predatory world where the largest predators have the most money. Who owns the N A F ?
    It may just be easier to get their tax returns to find out. Good Luck in that ever happening ?

    Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)

  5. domain dealer says

    As an Arbitrator and Domain Investor,
    You have the right to also have the choice of an Arbitrator. You can ask that a neutral Arbitartor be brought in. The very reason these same people are brought in is because they are being paid a lot of money by UDRP. Most defendants do not know their rights when it comes to Arbitration.

Comment Policy:

TheDomains.com welcomes reader comments. Please follow these simple rules:

  • Stay on topic
  • Refrain from personal attacks
  • Avoid profanity
  • Links should be related to the topic of the post
  • No spamming. Listing domains, products, or services will get the comment deleted

We reserve the right to remove comments if we deem it necessary.

Join the Discussion