UDRP Systematic Bias as Panelists Mindlessly Copy and Paste Text

I just wrote an article demonstrating systematic bias in the UDRP, documenting how panelists mindlessly copy and paste text into their decisions:

https://freespeech.com/2019/10/10/udrp-systematic-bias-as-panelists-mindlessly-copy-and-paste-text/

Panelists are not starting from a clean slate when adjudicating cases, as one would expect from a neutral and unbiased panel. Instead, panels are using a starting point that the complainant will be the winner, demonstrating systematic bias against domain name registrants.

 

I read somewhere that in 3-members panels the decisions are (technically) prepared by the Presiding panelist. Which makes some sense, since it is may not be practical for 6 hands to work with the same .doc from 3 different locations. (WIPO pays $1500 to the Presiding panelist, and each co-panelist receives $750). In this particular case, the Presiding panelist is Hon. Karl V. Fink (ret.) - so such an outcome is not a surprise. One can check his other decisions. Almost always it is a copypaste in favor of complainants... Actually, since WIPO/NAF do offer "model response" and "model complainant", they should also offer "model decision" (accessible for panelists only?). It would be educational and interesting to read this forum-provided "model decision"...

 

The whole thing looks like its designed to squeeze money for a 3 person panel, since 1 person panel results in low quality judgments way too often. Like, 'hey, its just one person, what did you expect? wanna fair judgment, pay $$$$".

 

Great catch George