Summary (from Lexis):
In 1999, a new option for resolving Internet domain name disputes was introduced with promises of reducing the time and expense incurred in domain name disputes. ... This analysis will focus on a widely publicized domain name dispute between NetLearning, Inc. and Dan Parisi - one of the first UDRP decisions reviewed by a U.S. court. ... As is, this provision undermines mandatory participation by the domain name registrant that, in turn, undermines the UDRP's ability to serve as a cost and time efficient domain name dispute alternative. ... Second, the UDRP could not be considered compelled arbitration subject to the FAA because a UDRP complainant is not a party to the contract between the domain name registrant and the registrar. ... In response, NetLearning argued that, because a domain name registration expires after a set period of time, each time a registrant renews its registration constitutes a new "registration," so subsequent renewals are subject to the UDRP's prohibition against registering and using a domain name in bad faith. ... However, once a complainant decides to pursue a UDRP action, the UDRP drafters could have easily constructed a process more like binding arbitration so that a panel decision, even if appealed in court, would receive deference, and winning or losing a UDRP decision would have at least some consequence.