RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review - Draft Questionnaire

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

I did not mean to create the presumption that we would count responses.  As
I mentioned when we were on the interim committee setting up this Task Force
(which I know the others of you were not involved with), I do not want this
to become or be interpreted as a statistical study.  In other words, we will
not be saying "900 out of 1,000 people said that complaints and answers
should be published."  Rather, we will say for example that some people felt
that they should be published for reasons A, B, and C, while others felt
they should not because D, E, F.  We simply want people's feedback.  I tried
to keep the questions objective so they did not lead the person to any
particular conclusion.

Changing the format to solicit such feedback would be fine with me.  Milton,
perhaps it would help us if you could submit a couple of "questions" ion the
format you propose? I personally feel that our questions nevertheless need
to be somewhat focused so we hopefully get direct responses to specific
issues, and avoid getting a rambling list of complaints.

Can other people please share their views on the format we should use.

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:40 PM
To: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; synthesis@videotron.ca
Cc: DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org; nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review - Draft Questionnaire


Caroline:
I think you have hit many of the right issues with the draft, however, 
I have a question about its format.

The format is structured as a questionnaire, which seems to 
presume that someone is going to "count" the results. This
will require a lot of work.  Also, as a self-selected population, the 
resulting statistics could not be considered a representative sample of 
a population. Especially given language differences. 

Would it not be simpler to just have a bullet list of relevant
issues and ask commenters to address them in an open-ended
way?

BTW, once we have an acceptable questionnaire, are any of the
non-English members of the Task Force willing to take responsibility
for translating it? 

>>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 10/02/01 09:55AM
>>>
I have no problem and agree with your reasoning for changing the "front end"
of the timeline so it does not appear that it took us so long to create the
questionnaire.  Elisabeth, please change the first deadline to October 1,
2001 - November 1, 2001.

The reasons there is overlap in having the questionnaire submitted to the
public and our review of the responses is that (1) we can start reviewing
responses as they come in, and (2) at the same time we should be reviewing
the outside studies mentioned in the Terms of Reference.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca] 
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 6:24 PM
To: Chicoine, Caroline G.
Cc: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'; 'DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org' 
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review - Draft Questionnaire


Ummmmmmm, can someone explain the dates to me?
If we just got started and only recently got this committee fully staffed,
what
on earht is the point of having the June 20-August 14th deadline for
creating
the questionnaire?  Why not have a timeline that reflects reality and
provides
useful imformation?  Someone is sure to wonder why it took so long to create
the
questionnaire.  Why not simply say  Oct 1-November xx?

As for the rest of the timeline, Ive been a project magager many times im my
career and I find it a bit confusing. I 'think' I can explain the overlaps,
but
without actually *knowing* why I have uncertainty. The timeline also appears
fairly ambitious, so everyone feel free to tell me to shut up and get down
to
substantive work ok?


"Chicoine, Caroline G." wrote:

> Per my email on Friday, this email is to provide you with a revised
schedule
> (Elisabeth, can you just take these new dates from these email and modify
> Terms of Reference or do you want me to edit it and send you a revised
> version?)
>
> The June 29-August 14th deadline for creating the questionnaire should be
> changed to June 29-November 1, 2001.
>
> The August 15-September 15 deadline for submitting the questionnaire to
the
> public forum comment should be changed to November 2-December 15.
>
> The August 15-October 31 deadline for the Task Force to review results of
> questionnaire and prepare report should be changed to November 1-January
15
>
> The November 1-November 11 deadline for Names Council review should be
> changed to January 16-February 1.
>
> The November 12 deadline for NC to vote on report shall be changed to be
> the first NC teleconference after Feb 1. (we should have firm date soon)
>
> The November 13-December 13 deadline to schedule implementation should be
> changed to the one month period following the NC's vote.
>
> I am also forwarding a copy of a stab I took at a proposed Questionnaire
as
> promised.  Is there anyone on the list that cannot open Word attachments?
> The questionnaire includes questions based on input the interim committee
> received to date.  This is just something to get us started.  I have no
> presumptions that it is the right starting point or that any of it will
end
> up in the final questionnaire so PLEASE do not start shooting the
messenger.
> As the terms of reference mention, there were several topics that we as
the
> interim committee were made of aware of and we may want to structure the
> questionnaire by subject matter for clarity.  I also think that there will
> be questions that we only want certain people to answer based on their
> actual experience with the UDRP (see proposed questions directed to
> complainant/respondent and panelist/provider).
>
> With respect to the earlier emails regarding "UDRPs" used outside the
ICANN
> process, can I recommend that the following people review the policies and
> identify the differences between them and ICANN's UDRP  (I have chosen the
> following people because they come from the countries or regions to which
> these "other" UDRP apply):
>
> Canada - Dr. Joelle Thibault
> United Kingdom (Nominet) - Katrina Burchell
> Japan - Joon Hyung Hong
> Chile - Erick Iriarte
>
> Can we have a report by next Monday?
>
> We should continue to do this for "other" UDRPs as we become aware of
them.
>
> Welcome to the group and Milton and I look forward to working with all of
> you over the next month to create the questionnaire.  We apologize for the
> delay. Again, please be mindful to keep your emails substantive and to the
> point as a courtesy to us all who I am certain revive numerous emails each
> day that we must wade through.
>
>  <<UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC>>
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                     Name: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC
>    UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC    Type: WINWORD File
(application/msword)
>                                 Encoding: base64

--
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