Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

"Cole, Tim" wrote:

> The questionnaire looks like it is coming together nicely.  I like the
> groupings and flow, though it may be a lot to ask for practically every
> question to require more than a simple Yes/No response.  (We should also
> have "N.A." options for most questions.)
>
> Here are some thoughts I have about the revision:
>
> 1)  #20.  It's not clear to me why this question is duplicated at the top of
> page two.
>
> 2)  All of the first page questions are worded as if the person answering
> has participated in only one UDRP proceeding.  Many parties on both sides,
> and certainly the attorneys, have participated in multiple proceedings and,
> presumably, have had a variety of experiences.

Not to mention the fact that we are solliciting input from others who may have
had no UDRP experiences and wish to share their ideas with us.

>
>
> 3)  I think we should add a new question either before or after #2 (bottom
> of page one):
> If you were the Complainant and a transfer was ordered in your case, did you
> experience difficulty having the order implemented?  If yes, please provide
> details.
> (This question is proposed in consideration of the concern I raised in an
> earlier e-mail.  It is probably the number one complaint about the process
> we hear from Complainants, while the complaints we hear from Respondents are
> very well represented in this questionnaire already.  Also, there are very
> few questions aimed at Complainants in this questionnaire.)
>
> 4)  #33.  I propose a re-wording of this question to clarify what is being
> asked:
> Do you believe both registration and use [in bad faith] should be required
> [to satisfy the] bad faith [requirement]?  (My changes in brackets.  This
> more closely follows the language of the Policy.)

I think this re-wording works well.

>
>
> 5)  #43a. I suggest the following addition to the question:
> [Under what circumstances, if any, s]hould a pending....  [same as original,
> but remove the Why/why not at the end.]  (I think this will provide us more
> useful answers.)
>
> 6)  #40.  I believe there is a typo in this question.  It should read
> ...requested by [Respondent]... otherwise the question makes no sense.  (The
> Respondent pays nothing when Complainant requests a three member panel.)
>
> 7)  #40.  If #40 is still necessary, then the corollary should be there for
> the Complainant:
> Should a Complainant get a refund on the fee for a three person panel
> requested by the Complainant when the Respondent defaults and, if so, what
> portion?
>
> Hope these suggestions are useful.
>
> Timothy S. Cole
> Assistant Director of Arbitration
> National Arbitration Forum
> 651.604.6725
> 800.474.2371
> mailto:tcole@arb-forum.com
> http://www.arb-forum.com/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 5:23 PM
> To: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
> Subject: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire
> Importance: High
>
> > Sorry for the delay, but here is the most current version of the
> > questionnaire.  I have taken the liberty to move some questions around but
> > for the time being have kept the numbering the same so people could
> > compare it against their earlier notes and versions.  (In other words, the
> > numbering currently makes no sense, but just disregard) I have put in
> > comments to notify you all when I changed any language or added new
> > questions.
> >
> > I also believe that we need to have an introductory paragraph to the
> > questionnaire a draft of which is provided below.
> >
> "Pursuant to the UDRP Review and Evaluation Terms of Reference, version 2
> (which can be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html) the
> UDRP Review and Evaluation Task Force hereby submits a questionnaire to
> solicit public comment through a bottom up, consensus-building DSNO process
> regarding various aspects of the existing UDRP.  The Task Force has drafted
> this questionnaire with an eye towards not only identifying potential areas
> of reform, but also generating useful suggestions to the extent that
> modifications to the UDRP are suggested.  Therefore, to the extent that your
> responses are critical to the existing UDRP, we request that your responses
> also include proposed solutions. Each individual should submit only one
> response to this questionnaire.   There is absolutely no advantage in
> submitting multiple responses since the Task Force will not be collecting
> any statistics based on the responses it receives.  Rather, it is only
> interested in the merits and the substance of the comments it receives.
>
> This questionnaire is initially being submitted in English, but Spanish and
> French versions will be issued shortly.
>
> We thank you for your time and consideration in completing this
> questionnaire.
>
> UDRP Review and Evaluation Task Force
> November 1, 2001"
>
> > Given my delay in getting this to you, please let me have your thoughts by
> > 9 am central standard time on Thursday, November 1st. Except with respect
> > to the new or revised stuff, this is not the time to be asking for a major
> > overhaul of the questionnaire.  You all have had this month to do that.
> > Assuming no major changes or objections are raised, I plan to incorporate
> > any final comments and send the questionnaire to the DNSO Secretariat for
> > posting to the ICANN website, the DNSO website, the GA and the
> > Constituency websites later that day on Thursday, Nov. 1.  I will also
> > send a copy to Erick and Dan for translation into Spanish and French,
> > respectively.  If there is anyone else that could translate the
> > questionnaire any other languages, it would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Once the questionnaire is out, we still have work to do.  First and
> > foremost, we need to be reviewing results as they come in. I will check
> > with the Secretariat how we will receive copies of the response and get
> > back to you on that. Second, we will need to also review third party
> > studies, a list of which I will provide to you shortly.
> >
> If anyone has any questions, please let me know.
>
> >  <<UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC>>

--
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