<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [nc-udrp] ICANN LA Meeting
ooops! I sent DRAFT II out mere seconds before this came in. Guess
there's material for Draft III coming in already...
"J. Scott Evans" wrote:
> Dear All: First, please allow me to personally thank Dan for taking
> the laboring oar in this endeavor. Second, allow me to thank each and
> everyone for their fine comments with regard to the proposed draft
> questionnaire. I have had a chance to review Dan's draft from earlier
> this week and I have listed my comments below: 1. I must agree with
> the consensus position that there should be no categorization or
> commentary regard the questions. I believe the questions should
> simply be listed on the questionnaire. 2. I also agree with Tim that
> some mechanism needs to be implemented so that once a survey
> participant chooses a category, the questionnaire then addresses
> issues pertinent to the participant. In this regard, I wonder whether
> we could have the first question regarding the identification of the
> participant then cue the form that would appear with questions geared
> toward that participant (ie, provider, complainant or respondent). 3.
> With regard to the first question, "Should some body be able to
> establish a rule of law that all panelists would be required to
> follow?" I think this question should be removed. The policy is the
> uniform rule applied by all panelist. The interpretation of this
> policy may vary, but the rule is uniform. As for other variances
> which may occur, I believe there are sufficient questions set forth in
> the survey that cover these issues. 4. With regard to the second and
> third questions, "Have you used the option of staying the result of a
> UDRP action by filing a lawsuit in a pre-identified jurisdiction?"
> This question is cumbersome. Why not simply ask, "Have you ever
> challenged a UDRP decision? Why or Why not?" 5. With regard to the
> fourth question about adding additional domain names to the complaint,
> why not simply ask whether complainants should be allowed to amend
> their complaints and why or why not? In my opinion, the question as
> posed is emotionally charged. 6. With regard to the sixth question
> about notice procedures, I suggest we simply ask "How would you
> improve the notice procedures contained in the UDRP?" This question
> is more open ended and I believe it will solicit more creative
> responses from the participants. 7. With regard to the seventh
> question about supplemental rules, I suggest rewording the question to
> read, "Should the UDRP providers be required to have uniform
> supplemental rules? Why or why not?" 8. I do not think we should ask
> the eighth question regarding specific providers. The why or why not
> portion of the previous question should be sufficient to solicit an
> explanation from a participant that has a particular ax to grind
> concerning an individual provider. 9. With regard to the ninth
> question concerning an appeal process, I believe this question should
> be modified to ask whether the participant believes there should be an
> out of court appeal available within the UDRP. I do not think we need
> a why. I think the "why" is implied (i.e., parities unsatisfied with
> the initial decision should have the benefit of a second review of the
> decision). The better question is asked in the second part of this
> question (i.e., "How should it look?"). I also think we might
> consider asking which standard should be used on appeal (e.g., abuse
> of discretion or de novo). 10. With regard to complainants that
> refile to 3 member panels, I agree with Tim that this is not an
> "appeal" issue, but rather an issue of what, if any, preclusive effect
> prior UDRP decisions involving the same parties and the same domain
> name(s) should have. Perhaps a better way to get to this issue is to
> ask whether any affirmative defense should be available under the UDRP
> and, if so, what those would be. 11. With regard to the question
> concerning a challenge in a national court, I believe this issue is
> covered by the earlier question listed under my number 4 above. In
> addition, I believe the current form of the question begs the question
> and should not remain in the survey. 12. As for the question
> concerning speed vs. cost, I believe the current form of this section
> will prejudice the results. I would feel more comfortable with either
> providing five blanks and asking them to rank the most important
> qualities of dispute resolutions mechanisms and/or reasons for the
> UDRP. Alternatively, my preferred remedy is for our group to come to
> consensus on about five or six qualities of dispute resolution and
> have the participants rank these qualities in the order of
> importance. We might even ask a follow question of how the UDRP might
> be improved to meet their ranked list. 13. I see no point in asking
> the question about how providers should advertise. I am not sure that
> ICANN legally has a right to govern the method, mode or content of a
> providers advertising. I think community pressure is a far better
> tool for making providers toll the line on this issue. Let's not ask
> a question that we cannot securely give ICANN a recommendation which
> they can then implement. 14. While it may be important to ask the two
> questions regarding disqualification (i.e., panelist law firms in UDRP
> actions and panelists before National courts), here again I think the
> questions are not going to give us any information that is
> worthwhile. Any disqualification of panelists law firms or panelist
> from national courts would work a very harsh remedy on the UDRP. Most
> panelist barely make any money on the UDRP actions and would simply
> pull out of the process. Lastly, I do not think ICANN can put into
> place any policy that would disqualify panelist from appearing before
> a court. This smacks of restraint of trade. Most jurisdictions won't
> even allow attorneys to enter non-compete agreements. 15. With regard
> to the question concerning reverse domain name hijacking, I believe
> this question should be revised to read "How should the UDRP deal with
> reverse domain name hijacking?" Here again, I believe this type of
> question will solicit more creative answers. In addition, I think the
> current form of the question begs the question. 16. With regard to
> the issue of fairness, why is the first question specific to
> respondents? Why not ask, "If you have ever been a party to a UDRP
> proceeding, was the process sufficiently clear to you? Why or why
> not?" The question as currently drafted seems to presume that only
> respondents are confused by the process. 17. With regard to the
> question concerning the impartiality of the panel/panelist, let's ask
> "Did you feel the panel/panelist that heard your case were impartial
> and considerate?" 18. Same revision to the next question on language,
> let's ask "Did you feel . . . " 19. With regard to the question
> concerning consistency of decisions, I suggest we remove "among
> providers" and simply ask whether the survey participant believes that
> a consistency among decision is important and why or why not. 20. I
> think the last question submitted by Dan should be removed. I do not
> think we should design a survey that pulls out a fact from one
> recently reported case and makes it an issue for our survey. I hope
> these comments will assist Dan in putting together Draft II. Again, I
> want to thank everyone for their input and Milton and Caroline for
> their leadership. Kind regards. J. Scott Evans
> ADAMS, SCHWARTZ & EVANS, P.A.
> jse@adamspat.com
> 704-375-9249 ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Dan Steinberg
> To: carmody@lawyer.com
> Cc: Chicoine, Caroline G. ; nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] ICANN LA Meeting
> Well it's easy to see clear consensus on this issue.
> Hopefully we will
> do equally well in resolving any future differences.
> I will make this change (actually already implemented since
> Milton's
> logic convinced me) and others and submit a draft II this
> evening
> (Eastern Time). I will continue to put drafts on the table
> as long is
> task force members perceive there is merit. It's good to
> see we are
> making such progress against the tight deadline.
>
> As for LA, regtrettably I will not be able to attend.
>
> James Carmody wrote:
>
> > Caroline:
> >
> > I join the ranks of those who suggest a minimal
> > explanation. I also think it important to be clear as
> > to the status of those responding to the
> > questionnaire. The whole process has become
> > politically charged with some who think everything is
> > a protectable trademark and others who think that the
> > panelists should second guess the PTO in every case.
> > At least we should know the general background of
> > those responding to evaluate the bias.
> >
> > As for a social in LA, count me in!
> >
> > Jim Carmody, Houston
> > --- "Chicoine, Caroline G."
> > <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> wrote:
> > > To the extent that some of our group might be in LA
> > > for the ICANN meeting, I
> > > thought it would be nice to have a get together to
> > > put some faces with
> > > names. I was not planning to do anything
> > > substantive so those that will not
> > > be attending will not miss anything (except good
> > > company and a drink or two
> > > or three..); just more of a social get together. If
> > > we thought an actual
> > > meeting would be helpful, I could check to see if we
> > > could get a room with
> > > telephone access.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if you plan to attend LA and what
> > > your thoughts our on
> > > whether you believe a substantive meting is
> > > necessary.
> > >
> > > Thank You.
> > >
> > > Caroline G. Chicoine
> > > Thompson Coburn LLP
> > > One Firstar Plaza
> > > St. Louis, MO. 63101
> > > (314) 552-6499
> > > (314) 552-7499 (fax)
> > > cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com
> > >
> >
> > =====
> > James A. Carmody, nn5o, carmody@lawyer.com
> > Voice Mail: 713 446 4234; eFax: 815 461 5321
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> > http://personals.yahoo.com
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|