[...] If filers start to use CAC’s discounted offering, expect WIPO and National Arbitration Forum to follow. WIPO has already announced plans for a lower cost service. [...]

[...] WIPO and NAF, and the arbitration venue is in turn selected by the Complainant. WIPO and NAF are competing in the marketplace to offer services to their customers. The customers they are catering to are people or businesses [...]

[...] this month I reported on WIPO’s plans to introduce a fast-track UDRP proceeding. It would cost less and be decided faster than traditional UDRPs. At the time, I predicted that [...]

Maybe, they operate a small storefront website. Maybe, for their small store and the website is a small part of the business.

They can’t mentally justify hiring a IP lawyer if they could find one.

I realize there are a number of bad domain owners but I suspect the innocent and unknowledgeable domain owners will also be penalized.

True. I think we need to know more about what the process is before demonizing it. Not all domain name disputes are equal. Many, though obviously not all, of the cases that default SHOULD default.

There are actually some good ideas being considered, but the summary in that release is a train wreck. The basic idea is to have a round of notice pleading before having to submit full briefs. The types of cases that you and I defend are the “interesting” ones, but the bulk of UDRP cases are not that interesting. One side effect of there being so many default no-brainer UDRP cases is that a lot of recycled and frequently-quoted dicta come out of panelist hand-wringing over what are simple default cases of cybersquatting.

As usual, the devil is in the details, but tacking a round of notice pleading onto the front end of the UDRP is not inherently a bad idea. Calling it a “fast track UDRP” is an awful PR angle.