Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Research Articles

Remedy for Trademark Infringing Domain Names and Counterfeits

Ecommerce domains with names centred around inappropriate or unauthorized use of the trademarks of reputed and successful entities are the most accessible modes of infringement. Under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the only remedy for the trademark proprietors and intellectual property rights (IPR) owners is, to register a complaint with either World Intellectual PropertyOrganization (WIPO), or the regional Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centres, for the transfer or deletion of the disputed domain. In the present era of borderless online marketplace platforms and ecommerce websites, policing simultaneously against the availability of counterfeits in multiple countries, and the infringement of IPR, is a mammoth task. Incurring legal costs and management resources in defending such rights, often outweighs the remedy, even if available or when feasible. This article examines the current state of a role played by various stakeholders in ensuring the protection of the legitimate rights of the trademark owners, including the encouragement of innovation through effective enforcement legislations. The importance of regulating online market places is also illustrated by the latest EU Regulation on Digital Services Act.

Towards an understanding of global ‘private ordering’ in ICANN: text mining 23 years of Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) Decisions

ABSTRACT To assess the prospect of the ICANN Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) enabling global ‘private ordering’ for domain-name disputes, this study analyses textual data from 75,590 UDRP complaints involving 142,423 domain names. Using data provided by DNS Research Federation’s Data Analytics Platform (DAP.Live), we ask three major research questions: To what extent does the UDRP process differ between resolution bodies? What are the most prevalent themes as represented by keywords and topics? To what extent have these topics changed over time? Using descriptive statistics and a series of inductive text-mining techniques (term-frequency, term frequency-inverse document frequency, and topic modelling), we find substantial evidence for the ongoing stability of the UDRP. Case growth has continued since 2000. There is strong global support for two of the six DRSPs, WIPO and NAF. Average decision time varies substantially by DRSP with WIPO at 63 days and CAC at 36. Panelists heavily employ precedent when adjudicating complaints. Trademark holders continue to dominate the process, winning about 90% of complaints; however, successfully contested cases show strong UDRP jurisprudence supporting non-trademark holders. Topic models created capture both abstract (jurisprudential) and concrete (cybercrime) concepts and show spikes in cybercrime during COVID-19.

A practical guide to filing domain name complaints

This article first provides an overview of the background and functioning of different domain name dispute resolution procedures before providing tips and tricks for practitioners to make more efficient use of these procedures. These tips and tricks not only relate to the procedure itself but also to writing a clear and concise domain name complaint. This article is limited to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures and will not discuss the case law of ordinary courts on domain names. The main focus of this article is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the world’s most important domain name dispute resolution policy. Given the background of the authors, who are based in the Netherlands, the UDRP is mainly compared to policies that play a role in Dutch, Benelux and European practice. Many cybercriminals cleverly use official-looking domain names that are slightly different from the official domain name (and trade mark), through which they can impersonate the trade mark owner. The scams associated with impersonations are numerous. Scammers frequently provide instructions for payment to a finance department while using email addresses purporting to relate to the manager (CEO fraud). In the Port of Rotterdam, there are many cases of so-called terminal spoofing: scammers pretend to be the owner of a tank terminal and send emails to foreign parties in which they offer oil in return for a deposit. The same domain name that is used for the email address is often linked to a website that purports to be the official website of a specific tank terminal, including pictures of the tank storage and the actual address. It often results in the actual tank terminal owner, unaware of what has happened, having to deal at the gate of the terminal with angry and deceived buyers.2

Aspects of legal protection of Jordanian Domain Names (.jo)

This study aims to analyze the extent of the legal protection accorded to national Internet domain names (JO.) within Jordanian legislations, in light of the absence of a specialized legislative framework that deals with the concept of these domains, and it’s substantive and formal terms of registration. The study revolves around two problems, First: the Jordanian Electronic Transactions Law is devoid of any legal regulation of these domains. Second: the National Domain Name Registration Policy (jo.) concentrates on the technical aspects, without specifying domain’s concept and the rights of registrants. The study concludes the need of issuing a specialized bylaw which deals with domain’s tenor and terms, in accordance with the “Deployment of Information Technology Resources in Government Institutions Act”, it also recommend the referral of all domain disputes to the rules for Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy(UDRP).

SZANSE ARBITRAŻU W ROZWIĄZYWANIU SPORÓW NA TLE DOMEN INTERNETOWYCH

The Chances of the Arbitration in the Solutions of Disputes Regarding Internet Domain NamesSummaryThe paper deals with the Polish alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for internet domain names, which was introduced in January 2003 together with the establishment of a special Court of Arbitration. The Court acts within the Polish Chamber of Informatics, Technology and Telecommunication and it is based on a procedure drawn upon the well known UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy). The latter is actually applied by the main international organizations, e. g. such as Worldwide Intellectual Property Organisation.The analysis focuses on the main procedural issues, such as type of conflicts that can be an object of the court examination, claims to be raised by the plaintiff, legal validity of the verdicts. Similarly to UDRP, the Polish proceedings provide only to the domain name’s cancellation or its transfer for the benefit of the entitled person. The decision rendered by the Court acquires its full juridical force only after the ascertainment of its enforceability by an ordinary civil court. This means, that theoretically each proceedings concluded with a decision of the Court of Arbitration, should be followed by a compulsory formal examination in front of an ordinary court. Due to this, the Polish ADR seems to bring more juridical safety than the above-mentioned UDRP, yet the proceedings might be in practice protracted. In addition, such „enforced” decision would possess validity in law, in respect of the establishment of all facts, which could be further used as a ground to potential claims for damages or unjustified enrichment.

ADR in Cyberspace: The Need to Adopt Global Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for Addressing the Challenges of Massive Online Micro-Justice

This paper discusses the potential of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for solving Internet-related disputes and to address the challenges of Massive Online Micro-Justice, i.e. an online justice system that aims at solving a massive amount of micro Internet-related disputes affecting citizens and companies alike around the globe that are presently submitted to online platforms and decided by them. In particular, this paper discusses the challenges faced by online platforms to deal with the myriad of micro cases they are confronted with on a daily basis by reference to the massive (and ever-growing) amount of removal requests which have been submitted to Google following the (highly mediatised) confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union of the Right to Be De-indexed (better known under a misnomer, i.e. the Right to Be Forgotten). On this basis, this paper pleads for the development of global policies governing online alternative dispute resolution mechanisms which is critical to avoid fragmentation and which is necessary to maintain equitable access to justice in cyberspace. In this respect, this paper discusses the use of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) as a possible source of guidance for such global dispute resolution mechanism.

Are We Getting Good Decisions by Top - Level Domain Name Dispute Resolution Providers?

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has offered unique solution to deal with disputes regarding the registration of internet domain names (so called trademark dilemma) in 1999. Uniform domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) delimits procedural rules to solve such disputes and to create non – binding decision (binding between involved parties) which approves / rejects the transfer of the domain name to new (trademark) owner.This paper has to focus on the question whether we are getting good decisions or the decisions in similar cases are decided more or less randomly. It is necessary to focus on such question also because of the fact that ICANN is planned to be transferred to the global multi - stakeholder community this year. Is the decision making process ready for such a big change or is it easily suggestible? To try to answer this question it will be necessary to go through the history and activities of ICANN and to focus mainly on UDRP process. Comparison of the convenient trademark dilemma cases or statistics will try to show defects of the rules, which are pointing at problems not only recently but already for quite a long time.The conclusion then is to articulate possible future development and to offer some recommendations of what is necessary to pay attention to.

Disputes Resolution in “Cyber-State”: To Duello or to Arbitrate

The growing name of the cyber world demands more strict laws to be created. And these regulations will become more complex and intricate with the development of internet. The only online arbitration model shaped by the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) society is The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The issues related to the domain name have been very efficiently tackled by the E-arbitration (UDRP). Social networking problems such as Control, Non Money Value dispute and the Enforcement Ability are almost similar to the problems in issues related to the domain name. In this research will study the UDRP- based legal frame work Social Network Dispute Resolution. We will also discuss the resemblances between problems related to social network and domain name and will use them in the implementation of UDRP system to solve social network issues.

Trademark Protection in Social Media: A Battle Won by Technology

Conflict and differences of platform and nature in real world and cyberspace is the basis of further issues of trademark in cyberspace (Goldman, 2005). While Internet fast development, creates more challenges to trademark protection among others using metatag or domain name tasting by cybersquatters, it also establishes technology related protection over the mark for example discouraging add grace period (AGP) (Patrick and Lonardo, 2009). Most of scholars established the fact that the emergence of social media website namely among others Youtube, Twitter and Facebook, posed more challenges as well as opportunity of with its different platform setup (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). Infringement by username and pages, Hashtag and channel, prove that trademark infringement is too hot to handle (Strand, 2011). Social media somehow manage it ‘technology style’ in protecting trademark through username and pages verification or numbers of followers’ calculation, among other’s. The discussion by scholars went on but none yet to compare and proved that technological innovation is powerful tools for trademark protection or even it is a better one.This paper intended to find whether it is true that trademark protection in cyberspace via legal means for example, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, (ACPA) Lanham Act and Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), is losing its grip as Internet itself with further innovations has created more rooms for infringement, as well as new methods of protection for trademarks. This study will provide avenue for trademark law to be revisited. Legal protections in different setting need thorough and empirical methods to suits the nature and platform. Thus may concede that handling issues in cyberspace is best left to ‘the owner of the field’. Technology expert will be enlightened as to capitalize the tools in order to maintain harmony between law and technology. It is vital to examine how social media directly and indirectly provide more avenues for trademark infringements and whether it is covered under trademark law scope available. More importantly how technology played vital role in trademark protection as it posed more challenges to the same. Comparison and contrast to domain name is the best option available to measure how law evolvement and technology involvement through innovations operates in order to protect trademark in cyberspace.

Can Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Become the Default Method for Solving International Intellectual Property Disputes?

This essay explores how the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms can be promoted to solve international IP disputes. It presents the case of internet domain name dispute resolution and focus particularly on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the way in which this policy has been adopted as a model by legislators. On this basis, it analyzes how, and under what conditions, other types of IP ADR systems can be developed in light of the UDRP, and will explore whether ADR systems can become the default method for solving international IP disputes.

Novel Remedies for Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Online

The paper explores the failure of traditional civil remedies, as well as newer “three strikes” and Internet filtering remedies, to tackle intellectual property rights infringement on the Internet. Although the “three strikes” and Internet filtering/blocking measures were introduced in response to inadequacy of traditional remedies, over the decade of practical applications they have not achieved significant success, as well. Principal socio-legal reasons for such failures are reviewed and analyzed. Main reasons are found to be that traditional remedies and first generation new remedies are tailored to “offline” environment. Existing remedies are more suited to traditional legal interactions, where the parties are clearly identifiable and jurisdictional collisions are well defined. The way of action of existing remedies is inherently offline. They are ill adapted to the requirements of the online environment, such as difficulty to identify anonymous parties in multiplejurisdictions, and hence, high enforcement costs, as well as legal and technological complexity. It should be noted that online environment requires swift enforcement in view of the dynamic technological change. Based on this analysis, key features of the efficient online remedy design are identified. In the second part of the paper, a case study of successful enforcement of trademark rights online is presented. Example of rare success in enforcing legal liability for infringement of intellectual property rights is the special remedy of domain name seizure and takeover, implemented through the alternative and online dispute resolution procedure – the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Domain seizure/takeover remedy implemented through the existing UDRP system works at the supranational level and successfully operates as an online instrument dealing with trademark rights infringement in the domain names. The author considers expansion of this special remedy and the domain seizure through the UDRP to cover copyright and related rights infringement as a viable addition to the existing remedies for the rights holders to deal with the online infringements. The former (that is a special sanction of domain seizure and take-over) may be relatively easily adopted by the judiciary both as an interim measure and as a final remedy; however, this would address only part of the challenges that enforcement of intellectual property rights faces online. Only the combination of the special sanctions and the online dispute resolution mechanism, capable to enforce such sanctions, address most inadequacies of traditional offline remedies (especially high cost, slowness and complexity, competence of the dispute resolution authority, as well as risks of political and legal abuses). This may be achieved through expansion of the existing UDRP system; however, it may need an additional supranational legal framework. The paper recognizes limitations of any rights enforcement instruments online, which are predefined by the nature of the online environment – its extraterritorial nature and span over jurisdictions, which may willingly tolerate infringement of intellectual property rights. These limitations would set the limits over the effectiveness of the novel remedies. Nevertheless, the domain seizure and take-over sanction made available for other infringements of the intellectual property rights online (chiefly copyright and related rights infringement) and enforced through relatively easily expandable UDRP system would complement the existing offline remedies and would expand the enforcement instrumentary for the rights holders, thus, enabling marginalization of the most popular intellectual property rights infringements online.

Reflections on the uniform domain name dispute resolution policy as it enters its second decade

On 24 October 1999, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) implemented the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) as a dispute resolution procedure for resolving domain name disputes. The UDRP has been a very popular method for resolving disputes, and since its inception the principal UDRP global dispute resolution provider – the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, has administered over 20,000 proceedings under the UDRP (or UDRP-related policies). This article examines the core principles which have emerged in UDRP jurisprudence and practice, and outlines some of the major criticisms and suggestions for reform as the UDRP enters its second decade.

New gTLDs – Pandora's Box is open

In a world with over 1.6 billion Internet users, the expansion of generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) continues to be a key issue for legal right holders and Internet users generally. Originally, expansion of gTLDs was largely motivated by the recognition that there is a conflict between domain names and trademark owners with similar marks, which belong to different geographical locations, or to different goods and/or services classification. This expansion has, in the past, been relativity ‘controllable’. However, in June 2008, the board of the Internet Cooperation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved the concept of introducing new gTLDs in unlimited numbers. This development is significant to legal right holders in many ways, and is expected to create further controversy in an unsettled area of law, that of property rights over domain names and their relationship with other legal rights. This paper reviews the manner in which ICANN is handling the expansion of gTLDs from a legal right holders' perspective. The paper will examine the application of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), arguing that over the past 10 years the UDRP has exhibited significant inconsistencies in the making of decisions and that the issues of interpretation of the policy and the use of precedent can only be resolved by a unitary appeal procedure. ICANN's new proposal of introducing a Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) is still pending consideration and it is unknown at this juncture whether this will be used in conjunction with the UDRP or otherwise.

Can these things be resolved?

This is a report of a presentation on 5th July 2006 by David Tatham. It focuses on introducing the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and on the ADR procedure of the (then) newly launched .eu domain. The first part provides an excellent introduction to lawyers who may be unaware of the UDRP being used for domain name disputes. In addition, it provides an interesting snapshot of dispute resolution in relation to the .eu domain immediately following the 2006 ‘Land Rush’. The first part begins with a discussion of the history of internet dispute resolution since the inception of the UDRP in 1999. His figures suggest that by July 2006, there had been almost 15,000 decisions relating to disputes over top-level domain names; and the number of disputes has only increased since that time. This increase is due to the overall growth in internet users, the utilization of automated...

Pandora's box is finally opened: The uniform domain name dispute resolution process and arbitration

This article aims to discuss the issue of whether the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) endorsed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an arbitral process, according to the principles of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. For this purpose this article will first establish the true meaning of arbitration, moving on to illustrate how it has been incorporated with the introduction of the Internet and specifically the interaction between Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms. Furthermore, this article will demonstrate how ICANN has used arbitration and ADR methods to deal with the conflict between trademarks and domain names; for this purpose, a short history of the UDRP will be mentioned and the Policy will be later compared to conventional arbitration in order to prove that UDRP is not an arbitral process, at least according to the way arbitration is conceived. Finally, this paper will illustrate that ICANN's Policy has created a whole new process for deciding domain name disputes that has a rather ambiguous nature.

DOMAIN NAMELAWANDPRACTICE AN INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK

PART I: THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AND THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR THE REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES A. Structure and Organization of the Domain Name Systems B. Registration Requirements and Dispute Resolution C. Statistics PART II: NATIONAL DOMAIN NAME SYSTEMS AND CONFLICTS WITH DOMESTIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS REGIMES Australia Austria Belgium Canada China Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong India Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Poland Russian Federation Singapore Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States PART III: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) B. Alternative Dispute Resolution for C. Other gTLD-specific Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures PART IV: THE PARIS CONVENTION/WIPO JOINT RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PROVISIONS ON THE PROTECTION OF MARKS AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SIGNS ON THE INTERNET PART V: COUNTRY OVERVIEWS Appendix I: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Appendix II: Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Appendix III: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Appendix IV: Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet Appendix V: Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2002 on the Implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain Appendix VI: Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 Laying Down Public Policy Rules Concerning the Implementation and Functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the Principles Governing Registration

Constraint-based wrapper specification and verification for cooperative information systems

In this paper, we propose the use of semistructured constraints in wrappers to mitigate the impact of poor extraction accuracy on Cooperative Information System (CIS) data quality. Wrappers are a critical element of CISs whenever the constituent information systems publish semistructured text such as forms, reports, and memos rather than structured databases. The accuracy of CIS data that stem from text depends upon the wrappers as well as the accuracy of the underlying sources. Wrapper specification is the process of defining patterns (i.e. regular expressions) to extract information from semistructured text. Wrapper verification is the process of ensuring extraction accuracy—that the extracted information faithfully reflects the underlying source. We focus on the problem of extraction accuracy. We use constraints on semistructured data for both wrapper specification and verification. Consequently, we perform extraction and verification simultaneously. We apply the concept to wrappers for a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) CIS of arbitration decisions. UDRP decisions are currently distributed across arbitration authorities on three continents. The accuracy of data extracted using constraint-based specification and verification is measured by Type I and Type II errors.

Whither the UDRP: Autonomous, Americanized or Cosmopolitan?

Recently, assessments of the performance of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) have stressed the need for institutional and procedural reforms relating to issues such as forum shopping, panel selection, and pleading rules. Far less attention, however, has been paid to a different set of issues critical to assessing the UDRP's performance: its relationship to national courts and to national intellectual property laws. There are three different ways in which this relationship might evolve to change the present structure and functions of the UDRP. First, the UDRP might be made more autonomous in character, transforming it into a body of non-national rules and procedures distinct from any one nation's laws and largely insulated from review in national courts. Second, the UDRP might become more Americanized by interpreting its substantive rules in harmony with U.S. statutes and case law, and by funneling judicial challenges to panel decisions into U.S. courts. Third, the UDRP might be made more cosmopolitan, enhancing the influence of a diverse array of national laws and legal institutions and generating new modes of interaction among national and non-national legal systems. This Essay explores these three evolutionary pathways and the critical questions each presents for institutions such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), for national lawmakers and national courts, and for those advocating procedural reforms of this new dispute settlement system.

The ICANN Domain Name Dispute Resolution System as a Model for Resolving other Intellectual Property Disputes on the Internet*

This article provides a introductory consideration of the extent to which the domain name dispute resolution system of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) - which implements and enforces the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) - provides a useful model for the resolution of other intellectual property disputes that arise through the use of the Internet. It starts with a brief description of the development and implementation of the UDRP, and of the experience since its adoption by ICANN. The article then proceeds to explain the reasons for the effectiveness of the ICANN domain name dispute resolution system, and the key actors and entities that comprise that system. The conceptual equivalent of those actors and entities in a generalized regulated technical infrastructure are then determined by extrapolation. The reasons for the effectiveness of the ICANN system - the uniform application of the UDRP to all potential transgressors, and the automatic execution of an effective remedy against proven transgressors - are discussed as well as how this remedy can have the secondary effect of the removal of the transgressor's presence on the Internet under the domain name in issue. There is no reason why, as a matter of practical necessity, the availability of this remedy need be limited to the type of conduct currently prohibited in the UDRP - i.e. bad faith registration and use of a domain name that is the same or confusingly similar to another person's trademark or service mark. It is conceivable that other conduct which infringes on the rights of an intellectual property owner could be treated as giving rise to such a remedy. Accordingly, the ICANN domain name dispute resolution system does, in theory at least, have the potential to provide a model for the resolution of disputes concerning misuse on the Internet of other intellectual property.

Fair.com?: An Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP

Fair.com? reviews all 3094 ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) decided through July 7, 2001 finding that that the allocation of cases may be unfairly biased toward trademark holders. It arrives at that conclusion based on three key findings. First, forum shopping has become an integral part of the UDRP. ICANN delegates the administration of the UDRP to four dispute resolution providers. Each provider maintains a roster of panelists who serve as judges in deciding the disputes. Complainants, who are invariably trademark holders, have the right to select which provider will handle their case. Track records of the various providers are a matter of public record and show that 90% of complainants rationally choose the two providers who feature panelists that render the most pro-complainant decisions. Second, there is a correlation between the selection of panelists and case outcome. UDRP cases are decided by either single or three-member panels. Single member panels feature one judge chosen exclusively by the arbitration provider. Three-member panels contain three judges selected by both the complainant and the respondent. This is significant since data shows that when providers control who decides a case, complainants win just over 83 percent of the time. As provider influence over panelists diminishes, such as in three-member panel cases, the complainant winning percentage drops to 60 percent. In an attempt to explain this, the study arrives at the third key finding - the higher winning percentage in single member panel cases may stem from provider bias toward ensuring that pro-complainant panelists decide the majority of cases. Although the allocation of cases is supposed to be random, the study finds that this may not be the case. For example, the National Arbitration Forum, one of the larger dispute resolution providers, has 135 panelists. However, 53 percent of its single panel cases are decided by only six of them. Those six panelists rule in favour of complainants 94 percent of the time. The article concludes that the solution to the forum shopping issue, and with it the concerns about bias and inconsistency within the UDRP, is surprisingly simple -- all contested UDRP actions should involve three-member panels. Establishing the three-member panel as the default would remove most provider influence over panelist selection and ensure better quality decisions by forcing panelists to justify their reasoning to their colleagues on the panel. As with the current system, both parties would play a role in selecting one panelist, who may be part of any ICANN-accredited providers' roster, while the provider would select the third panelist from among a list that both parties have reviewed and accepted.