The procedures are clear and fair. The ability to make cross examination of evidences, documents and memos by parties meets the standard due process fairness criteria. It is worth to introduce oral hearings and ability for arbitrator(s)-panels- to meet with parties, receive their arguments, hear their evidences and brief about the case and its grounds. This can be optional based on parties request and/or based on panels’ discretion. 

One of the key elements that UDRP system may want to readdress is the ability of parties to seek full details of parties holding domain names and method of their payments to allow tracing of funds and accounts. With the era of transparency, KYCs, AMLs and all other compliance policies, we see no reason for registrar to keep the parties details (i.e. registrant details and all their information) that trademark owners may find useful or important to pursue enforcement actions. The policy can introduce mandate to registrars to reveal such information based on final decision/resolution issued by panels to accept UDRP complaints in favor of trademark owners. 

The above may however be challenged by the possible for some owners of a domain name to hide their contact details via proxy services. It would be also recommended for the UDRP system to find a way around this to guarantee transparency in the existence of such technical loophole.