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.comThis 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cases categorized as “Cancelled,” “Claim Denied,” “Split Decision,” and “Transferred,” meaning cases categorized as “Withdrawn” or “Pending” were not included in the Current Study.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.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
What does it mean to make corporate social responsibility (CSR) part of your core business?
I see so many articles and blogs discussing holistic approaches to CSR – whether you call is shared value, profits with purpose, or triple bottom line – but not always with a successful description of what they mean in practice. I know I’ve glossed over this important tactical aspect of CSR in my own posts.
Thanks to an enlightening conversation with Dave Stangis, VP of Corporate Social Responsibility at The Campbell Soup Company, I have a refreshed perspective on how CSR can become part and parcel of your corporate DNA (Hint: employees are critical). Stay tuned on this blog for a Follow Friday Feature with Dave coming soon.
Holistic CSR requires everyone in your company to internalize your company’s CSR values and apply them to his or her job. A company’s total impact is a collective effort from employees and supply chain partners.
When you think of the complexity of job functions that influence a product from conception to production to purchase to waste or recycling, you can begin to contemplate how CSR thinking and strategy can impact that product along the way.
- The design team can factor in reduced production resources and end of life disposal options into the prototype. Or even better, make the product helpful to consumers who want to make a difference with the products they buy.
- The manufacturing team can apply more efficient production methods in making the product.
- The packaging team can use recyclable packaging materials or think about new ways to package the product with less materials.
- The marketing team can include responsible brand and product attributes in the value proposition.
- The company can have a policy to take back its products for recycling or repurposing (Patagonia is an example here).
Whether your company is a consumer products giant, a professional services provider to Fortune 500 clients, small business or start-up, you have a unique approach to, role in and impact on social and environmental challenges. That uniqueness is derived partly from your corporate strategy, but mostly in how that strategy is applied on the ground by employees.
Don’t forget to measure and reward CSR functions as part of your professional development process. Clear expectations, incentives and acknowledgment are the only sustainable ways to inculcate CSR across every job in your company.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Monday, July 9, 2012
- CHOOSING THE RIGHT FUNDRAISING PROJECT ....
- PLANNING THE FUNDRAISER
- STEP ONE: SETTING A DATE
- STEP TWO: FINDING A LOCATION
- STEP THREE: GENERATING FUNDS
- STEP FOUR: PUBLICIZING THE EVENT
- STEP FIVE: PLANNING THE EVENT
- STEP SIX: RETAINING CONTRIBUTORS AND PARTICIPANTS
- FUNDRAISING EXAMPLES
- DISTRIBUTION FUNDRAISERS
- SERVICE FUNDRAISERS
- FOOD SALES
- PRODUCT SALES
- GIFT PACKAGES
- PLANNING CHECKLISTS