On 10/14/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It would be *more* susceptible to burnout than
the current model,
actually,
since there's no provision for the scenario
where none of the five
randomly-selected arbitrators are willing to do any case work. In a
system
where the full Committee hears every case, a few
active members can keep
things moving (to some degree) even if the bulk of the Committee isn't
actively participating.
(Or, in other words: we can currently close a 5-0 case if we find *any*
five
active arbs, but, in the new model, we would
select five arbs first and
then
expect them to be active -- which is a rather
dangerous assumption to
make.)
You make a good point. It should work, though, as long as the arbs are
honest about when they are and aren't able to be active. They'll be
occasions when something comes up and an arb becomes unexpectedly
inactive, but in most cases they should know far enough in advance
whether they are able to take on a case or not. An inactive arb can be
replaced by one of the others if necessary, of course.
"Active" doesn't mean quite what you're assuming it does, though. An
active
arbitrator is merely one that's participated *in some way* in the recent
past; it doesn't constrain them to a particular level of activity.
The basic process of a case is something like this:
1. Case submitted
1a. Delay
2. Case accepted
3. Evidence submitted
3a. Long delay
4. Proposed decision drafted
5. Voting begins
5a. Long delay
6. Case closed
A random panel would essentially attempt to decrease the voting delay (5a)
by reducing the number of needed votes, at the cost of increasing the
drafting delay (3a) by reducing the chance that an arbitrator would be
available to draft a decision (something which, historically, not all
arbitrators do a lot of).
You could, I suppose, have a system where arbitrators not on the voting
panel could draft a decision for the panel to consider; but that doesn't
seem very helpful. Alternatively, you could reduce the voting delay by
allowing unopposed cases to pass with smaller majorities, but that would be
yet another can of worms.
Kirill