On 1/5/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/5/06, Nathan Russell <windrunner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps Arbcom could be enlarged, and start forming qorums of 5-6 to
hear the incoming cases on some sort of rotating basis?
This was rejected because currently, all Arbitrators must hear all cases,
so
adding to Arbcom doesn't reduce the amount of work. Having a low quorum,
or
splitting the Arbcom into two panels, means you get an incoherent
political
situation where the result of the RFA is determined by the randomly
selected
makeup of the panel. What will happen when one Arbcom disagrees with the
other?
Many supreme courts or international courts do work like this though. They
consist for instance totally of 10 judges but some cases are just taken up
by three of them. I haven't encountered any inconsistencies there. Although
I do not know how they solved it. Probably because they have and use a good
bureaucratic system.
Garion