On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, at 12:41 [=GMT+0800], Horacio T. Cadiz wrote: > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Barbara Simons wrote: > > > It seems to me that the primary problem is that the complainant gets to > > select the arbitrator, if there is only one, or two out of the three > > arbitrators, if there are three. This is a fundamental inequity. > > Regards, > > Barbara > > Because they can select the arbitrators, they select the > arbitrators favorable to them. Big companies, as a matter of course, will > select the WIPO panel. Because big companies are usually the > complainants, the WIPO panel generates a lot of business and the other > arbitrators die. Finally, only one arbitrator will be alive. Guess who > that will be? Though I share your feelings, I don't think WIPO is worse than NAF. Also, and this may be more important, our 'battle' is not against WIPO, or it making money. I am guessing the IntProp industry provides WIPO with sufficient funds. I think we have a better chance if we argue on the level of the rules being flawed. Not people being greedy.