Towards a general framework for empirical legal analysis: In domain name disputes, do panelists matter?
This paper introduces an automated methodology for empirical legal analysis using data on ∼27,000 domain name disputes decided under the Uniform Domain Names Dispute Resolution Policy. Using the methodology, I examine whether characteristics of adjudicating panels affect who wins such disputes. Cont...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research_smu/93 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research_smu/article/1092/viewcontent/Jerrold_Soh___In_Domain_Name_Disputes_Do_Panellists_Matter__Draft___1_.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | This paper introduces an automated methodology for empirical legal analysis using data on ∼27,000 domain name disputes decided under the Uniform Domain Names Dispute Resolution Policy. Using the methodology, I examine whether characteristics of adjudicating panels affect who wins such disputes. Controls for legal factors are synthesised by applying text mining to pre-processed decision texts. L1-penalised logistic regression is then used for estimation. Significance tests are conducted using post-selection inference methods. I find that panellist identity and size does not significantly affect dispute outcomes. Further, the synthesised controls are effective proxies for legal factors, suggesting that the methodology can be applied to other legal fields. |
|---|