DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:14 AM
> At 11:09 08.04.2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > Having heard one or another report that someone, somewhere
> > > has some sort of
> > > problem does not warrant making a change to ensure that that
> > > particular
> > > thing never happens again.
> >
> >However, it is a serious complaint that a performance 
> tracking system does
> >not exist for UDRP. It is simple to construct one and WIPO 
> ain't broke.
> I believe (based on a conversation with a WIPO person) that 
> WIPO in fact 
> does performance tracking for the UDRP as executed by WIPO.

What WIPO does, since we can't see it, is irrelevent if they cannot publish
the metrics. Personal data can be abstracted, there are known ways to do
this. Also, one of the most damning arguments is that court cases are
puclicly available documents and, as you indicate here, UDRP cases aren't.
However, I don't need, or care, to see detailed arguments.  I just want to
see the management metrics, which are also much of the statistics we are
arguing about here.

> However, this:
> a) does nothing for ensuring consistency between UDRP providers

That depends on the sort of metrics that are kept. Very few also realize
that the appeals courts are a way of grading a judges performance. Had we an
appeals process, wrt UDRP, we would also be screening Arbitrators. Need I
prove the economic disadvantage of a losing defendant? Lacking an appeals
process, statistical performance measurements and methods should be derived.

> b) is unlikely to be made public, because it reflects directly on
>     personnel issues, which are usually privacy-restricted.

see above.

> I doubt the "simple" part of the statement above, though. 
> What to track can be really fun to try to describe. 

Tracking a company's performance can be equally fun. I think that UDRP
performance statistics may be easier. I don't see where it is any more
difficult than SEI maturity levels and other management techniques. We may
or may not be able to track individual arbitrators, but aggregate statistics
can certainly be used to measure UDRP sysstem performance.

> But agree that no measurements = very little knowledge; it's a worthwhile


> (BTW, wrt the "someone, somewhere" above: reports of problems 
> that have 
> domain names and WIPO/NADF/xxx docket numbers are quite a bit 
> easier to 
> discuss than "someone once reported that they had a problem".....)

Neither of them are very interesting except where there are many of them
with the same symptoms.
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>