3rd Circuit Rules Method of Resolution in Domain Name Case Not True Arbitration

[lawpal]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1045754124197

A dispute over the rights to an Internet domain name is not entitled to "extremely deferential" review in the federal courts because such proceedings do not fall under the Federal Arbitration Act, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

In Dluhos v. Strasberg, a unanimous three-judge panel found that the dispute resolution policies established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers does not qualify as a true arbitration under the FAA. (Federal Arbitration Act)

As a result, the court found that "judicial review of those decisions is not restricted to a motion to vacate [the] arbitration award under Section 10 of the FAA, which applies only to binding proceedings likely to realistically settle the dispute."

[Fearless]

I agree. In a true arbitration it's not necessarily one winner and one loser. Usually in an arbitration it's give and take.

An example:

I pay $50K for a domain name. Someone files for UDRP arbitration to get the name. They win. They get a $50K valued name for the cost of an arbitration.

In a true arbitration the $50K I paid for the name would be considered in the resolution.

[pljones]

This decision is in line with the Parisi v. Netlearning case, and not all that unexpected.

[Ari Goldberger]

Yes. It is in line with the Parisi case (I represented Parisi). One point is that these UDRP proceedings simply aren't arbitrations at all -- a misconception that they are is caused, perhaps, by the fact that one of the UDRP providers is the National Arbitration Forum. Generally, an arbitration is a proceeding agreed on by two parties - usually in a contract. Here, the parties do not agree to an arbitration. The registrant simply is required to participate based on the domain name registration agreement. The Complainant does not come into the picture until it chooses to initiate a proceeding.

[jberryhill]

Yup. Careful folks have always used the words "proceeding" or "administrative proceeding" instead of "arbitration" and "panelist" instead of "arbitrator".

Some folks have a hard time with that:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00015.html
"UDRP proceedings are arbitrations. That is basic. In
almost all cases, as was discussed at the most recent
gathering of WIPO arbitrators in Geneva and recorded
in the proceedings, UDRP results are enforced in
national courts."

Oh well....