[gnso-sti] URS Examiner Randomization Proposal

[Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All: 
The discussion arose in the URS STI meetings of Panelist/Provider randomization.  
Mark Partridge and I offered to take the discussion offline. We have met and, in follow-up, provide the proposal below.
The key concern is forum-shopping, the informal name given to the practice adopted by some litigants 
to get their case heard in the forum most likely to provide a favorable judgment. 

Mark explained the concerns that randomization of URS Providers would remove competitive incentives 
between providers and may add undesirable costs and inefficiencies to the resolution of disputes.  
I explained my concerns that forum shopping may lead to biased results and outcome-selected providers.  

We developed a proposal that may resolve both sets of concerns. There proposals 
are now under review with our
Constituencies and SGs, and we wanted to share them with you. 

Note: I have suggested that we use the term "Examiner" for URS as a parallel to 
"Panelist" for the UDRP.
A number of us are already using the term and it helps to immediately identify 
which proceeding we are describing.

Kathy


Proposal for Randomization of URS Examiner Assignments

1.  The assignment of URS Examiners would be made on a randomized basis within a URS Provider,  
taking into account the language requirements of a particular dispute.
2.  Accredited URS Examiners could choose to be listed on the roster of any and all URS providers, 
but would not required to be listed with all providers (and may remove herself/himself from a Provider's listing). 
This preserves the freedom of Examiner choice and the ability of Examiners to decline assignments from URS providers who, 
for example, are poorly managed or have poor payment histories.  Examiners would be independent and not employees of the URS providers. 
URS Providers would accept all accredited URS Examiners who handle disputes within the language(s) handled by the Provider.
3.  URS Examiners would be accredited based on objective criteria established by ICANN, such as training and length of experience with 
relevant legal issues and proceedings.  Training and accreditation might be provided by ICANN, the dispute resolution providers or 
independent training providers.  Models for accreditation include American Arbitration Association and INTA Panel of Neutrals.
4.  Providers would be accredited by ICANN to serve as URS providers.  They would compete with one another for efficient and 
effective case management services.  Complainants would be able to select among the various providers based on preferences for pricing and service.  
Each Provider would maintain its own roster of accredited panelists, although, as noted above, accredited panelists could choose to be included 
on the roster of any or all accredited URS providers, and assignment of panelists would be made on a randomized basis within each provider 
taking into account the language requirements.
> <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/>