Re: [ga] What is ICANN doing to make sure that the UDRP providers are truly neutral?

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Where did this thread start that indicates through a question that UDRP 
"providers" are supposed to be "neutral".   (notice I do the same thing - 
indicating I do not know where it started - when I Obviously do)  Clearly 
neutrality would suggest some type of conflict. Here we have simple legal 
disputes on particular issues. Not conflagurations between Sampson and the kids 
versus all those Goliaths. Referees, umpires, mediators and judges are not 
supposed to live in a neutrality bubble.  They are supposed to have expertise 
resolving disputes.  I dare say I hope you have a doctor that hates cancer if 
you ever come down with a case of Non-Hodgkins lymphoma with pancreatic 
involvement stage 4. But in fact the Doctors job is to resolve the conflict in 
your body not be neutral. She is to restore balance.  It is irrelevant who she 
likes or if she is republican. And more than likely you want her well read and 
with some opines of her own.

--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] What is ICANN doing to make sure that the UDRP providers are 
truly neutral?
To: "Accountability Headquarters" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 11:31 AM




You think NAF is bad?

Wait until you hear what's been going on at ADNDRC HK.

Apparently they've decided to do an internal investigation - yeah that's the 
ticket - that'll cure the problems.

Not.

http://www.adndrc.org/announcement/ADNDRC_Press_Release_05102009.pdf

Shouldn't ICANN be involved in any investigations pertaining to UDRP fraud?