ABSTRACT
It is a common mistake to refer to the UDRP as arbitration. It is also a common mistake to believe that UDRP decisions carry the same weight as the arbitral ones. This mistake is partly because much of both ACP’s and the UDRP’s procedural context was based upon an arbitral structure of decision-making. The binding obligations, for instance, arising out of the contractual relationship between registrars and registrants, the use of specialist trademark agents as decision-makers, the availability of different dispute resolution centres to hear domain name disputes and the inexpensive and fast-paced nature of the mechanism, all mirror characteristics identified in the arbitral genealogy. In relation, however, to issues of decision enforcement, the parameters and control of the panels’ discretionary powers, the role of the courts and the Policy’s substantive rules, the UDRP fails to live up to its arbitral antecedents. Such a realisation is crucial since much of the Policy’s procedural legitimacy derives from arbitration. As the UDRP’s history rolls on, a central question should focus on whether the Policy is meeting the consent requirement and adheres to the traditional principles of the New York Convention on theRecognition and Enforcement of ForeignArbitral Awards.1
