RE: [council] RE: [nc-udrp] nc-udrp@dnso.org mailing list is open

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

Joon, we received our instructions from the NC Chair to move ahead.  As
Milton and I have said in other emails, all of you, especially the
Constituency reps, have the responsibility of reaching out to make sure all
views (whether NA, EU or civil or common law or otherwise) are inputted into
this process.  I am confident based on the distinguished group we have
assembled that we will be able to do so.  

I will be sending out an email later today which lists some questions that
have been presented to me from various sources (Non-commercial domain name
holder constituency, IP Constituency and individuals) simply as a starting
point.  Our next step is to create a questionnaire that will be disseminated
for public comment and input.  Our terms of reference have topics that
should be addressed, but the list is in no way exhaustive.  It is important
that the questions be phrased in an objective manner and that they are each
focused.  For example, a question like "What is your experience with the
UDRP?" would be too broad.  But, "Have you been involved in a UDRP
proceeding? If so, were you a complainant or respondent?  If respondent,
were the notice provisions effective? etc." Therefore, I am looking for each
of you to (1) provide questions, and (2) help us phrase the questions
properly.  Since we are behind schedule, I will revisit the Terms of
Reference and adjust it as necessary and resend it to the group so you can
plan accordingly.

To begin with, one of the problems we (the NC) have encountered in previous
working groups is trying to confirm we have a consensus when we do not know
the composition of the working group.  For instance, if we solicit responses
to the questionnaire and 1000 trademark owners respond "A" but only 10
registrars respond "B", we cannot say that A is a consensus position.  We
need to figure out a way to address this problem.  I will throw out one way
to get the dialog going.  We could ask the person filling out the
questionnaire to somehow identify their primary interest (i.e., trademark
owner, individual domain name holder, registrar, registry, UDRP panelist,
UDRP provider, etc.).  The reason I added "primary" is that many people
where different hats. 

Finally, and most importantly, I know that all of us are volunteers with
regular jobs that we must attend to.  It is important to remember this each
time you decide to send an email to the group and to try to keep your emails
concise and directed toward substance.  It is also important to remember
that everyone was selected based on their different backgrounds and thus we
expect and encourage differing views.  However, please remember to keep your
emails courteous.  Sometimes people tend to be more aggressive with email
since they do not have to physically meet face to face with the person to
whom they are corresponding.  

Milton and I want to thank you again for volunteering to help us with this
important issue. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Prof.Dr. Joon-Hyung Hong [mailto:joonh@snu.ac.kr]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 1:20 AM
To: Dan Steinberg; Oscar A. Robles Garay
Cc: Milton Mueller; philip.sheppard@aim.be;
CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; council@dnso.org;
DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org; nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [council] RE: [nc-udrp] nc-udrp@dnso.org mailing list is
open


Hi, everyone!
I think those questions initially raised by Elisabeth was crucial, which we
should discuss before we go. The main point was, in my opinion, the
seemingly overrepresentation of NA together with underrepresentation of
other regions. Equal representation as such, in terms of different families
of law or regional distribution, language differences etc., may not to be
solved for now. We should take into consideration. however, that the
recommendations to be submitted by the TF might not be accepted as
legitimate, just because the TF is overly dominated by members from NA.
Don't we have to review the possibility of recruiting more people from
non-NA regions? As far as I know, there have been some efforts to get
recommendations from other regions. What has become of it?
I'd like to suggest also, that the TF should take some input from those
parties who experienced the UDRP dispute resolution service by the existing
providers. Are there any experts among those who lost cases who found some
problems in the UDRP regime ?

Prof.Dr.iur. Joon Hyung Hong(Just call me Joon please!)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
To: "Oscar A. Robles Garay" <orobles@nic.mx>
Cc: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>; <philip.sheppard@aim.be>;
<CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>; <council@dnso.org>;
<DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [council] RE: [nc-udrp] nc-udrp@dnso.org mailing list is open


> 
> Point of information: I trained in civil law at université de montréal.
If you check I  think you will find my credentials impeccable. At least the
US congress thought so when they asked me to testify (more than once) on
international law and infrastructure issues other than the internet. Believe
it or not there is
> life outside the internet.
> 
> So any suggestion that we need droit civil (civil law) representation
before starting I would say is moot.  Other than civil and common law, what
other legal systems are you looking for?  As far as I know, they manage to
cover over 95% of the nations between the two. For example, the worlds most
populous country
> (China) is a primarily civil law jurisdiction, with common law used in
Hong Kong and other special enclaves.  I would say civil and common law
account for 100% but my search is not complete, so I accept the possiblity
that there is another system to be represented.  Should that imede the task
force? I think not, since
> there is already a good nexus with the existing jurisdictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Oscar A. Robles Garay" wrote:
> 
> > I agree with Milton in the need to have the representation of different
views on this group. I guess thatthis TF is different from the ones we
intended to define with the internal procedures. I believe this group should
have the repsresentation of the most usual law systems in the world (common
law and civil law?).
> >
> > I would encourage to look for representatives for the @other@ law
systems not represented in the curent TF and not start until we found at
least one third of the other systems (in case identify just one system), a
half (in case we identify more than one).
> >
> > Also I support Elisabeth proposal to have geographic representation in
groups that require it. And to define "special" TF's,  as this one, when the
criteria is another one.
> >
> > Oscar
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > In my opinion we really need to tough this out.
> > > The point of the TF process was to represent different views of the
> > > UDRP, not different geographic regions. That is FAR more important,
> > > in my opinion. But I agree with Caroline that it would be bad to get
> > > this distinguished group to invest time in something and then
> > > pull the rug out from them.
> > >
> > > As far as we can tell, Elisabeth is one voice.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 09/04/01
05:55PM >>>
> > > Philip, are Milton and I to assume that we can go forward with the
Task
> > > Force? I personally do not want to be responsible for wasting our Task
Force
> > > volunteers' time on proceeding if the NC feels that we need to
reconstitute
> > > the Task Force or if the NC is not going to support our efforts in
light of
> > > our geographic makeup.
> > >
> > > In either case, it is very difficult for me, Milton or the poor
volunteers
> > > to the Task Force, to get "excited" about this review with comments
like
> > > these:
> > >
> > > "Bottom line: would you really be part to a Review Group dominated by
16 NA
> > > for 3 Europeans, 1 African 1 Asian 1 Latin American ? Do you think
that any
> > > outcome from such a group will be perceived as legitimate ? Do you
think it
> > > will make a good opinion to ICANN and the Names Council ? Do you think
it
> > > makes sense to set up and international body if it is not ? Why do you
need
> > > the world here if you consider you may do everything on the world
behalf ?
> > > Elisabeth"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DNSO Secretariat [mailto:DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 6:38 AM
> > > To: nc-udrp@dnso.org
> > > Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be
> > > Subject: [nc-udrp] nc-udrp@dnso.org mailing list is open
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The nc-udrp@dnso.org mailing list is open.
> > >
> > > The geographic distribution of this group is:
> > > 16 NA, 3 EU, 1 AF, 1 AP, 1 LAC.
> > >
> > > The list of members follows.
> > >
> > > DNSO Secretariat
> > > --
> > >
> > > "Non voting co-Chair Caroline G. Chicoine"
<cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com>
> > > has been added to nc-udrp.
> > > "Non voting co-Chair Milton Mueller" <mueller@syracuse.edu> has been
added
> > > to nc-udrp.
> > >
> > > "Business Constituency, Sarah Deutsch (NA)"
<sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>
> > > has been added to nc-udrp.
> > > "ccTLD Constituency, Neil Duncan Dundas (AF)" <ndundas@africaip.com>
has
> > > been added to nc-udrp.
> > > "gTLD Constituency, Jeff Neuman (NA)" <Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.com> has
been
> > > added to nc-udrp.
> > > "IP Constituency, J. Scott Evans (NA)" <jse@adamspat.com> has been
added to
> > > nc-udrp.
> > > "ISP Constituency, Antonio Harris (LAC)" <harris@cabase.org.ar> has
been
> > > added to nc-udrp.
> > > "NCDNH Constituency, Michael Froomkin (NA)" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
has
> > > been added to nc-udrp.
> > > "Registrar Constituency Michael Palage (NA)" <michael@palage.com> has
been
> > > added to nc-udrp.
> > >
> > > "Complainant (or representative), Katrina Burchell (EU)"
> > > <Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com> has been added to nc-udrp.
> > > "CPR Panelist, M. Scott Donahey (NA)" <msd@tzmm.com> has been added to
> > > nc-udrp.
> > > "CPR Provider, F. Peter Phillips (NA)" <pphillips@cpradr.org> has been
added
> > > to nc-udrp.
> > > "eResolution Panelist, Ethan Katsh (NA)" <katsh@legal.umass.edu> has
been
> > > added to nc-udrp.
> > > "eResolution Provider, Dr. Joelle Thibault (NA)"
<jthibault@eresolution.com>
> > > has been added to nc-udrp.
> > > "NAF Panelist, James A. Carmody (NA)" <carmody@lawyer.com> has been
added to
> > > nc-udrp.
> > > "NAF Provider, Tim Cole (NA)" <tcole@arb-forum.com> has been added to
> > > nc-udrp.
> > > "Respondent (or representative), John Berryhill (NA)"
<jberryhill@ddhs.com>
> > > has been added to nc-udrp.
> > > "WIPO Panelist, Maxim Waldbaum (NA)" <mwaldbaum@salans.com> has been
added
> > > to nc-udrp.
> > > "WIPO Provider, Erik Wilbers (EU)" <erik.wilbers@wipo.int> has been
added to
> > > nc-udrp.
> > > "GA Member, Dan Steinberg (NA)" <synthesis@videotron.ca> has been
added to
> > > nc-udrp.
> > > "Independent ADR expert, Joon Hyung Hong (AP)" <joonh@chollian.net>
has been
> > > added to nc-udrp.
> > > "Independent academic expert, Graeme Dinwoodie (EU)"
<gdinwood@kentlaw.edu>
> > > has been added to nc-udrp.
> > >
> > >
> 
> --
> Dan Steinberg
> 
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> 
>