[nc-udrp] Re: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC

["J.Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>]

I like Katrina's suggestion.

J. Scott 

Katrina Burchell writes: 

> 
> We could also split up the questions between us and look at a selection
> together providing a summary for other members of the Task Force 
> 
> Katrina
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Chicoine, Caroline G. [SMTP:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:12 AM
> To:	'Dan Steinberg'; Oscar A. Robles-Garay
> Cc:	DNSO Secretariat; Chicoine, Caroline G.; council@dnso.org;
> nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Subject:	RE: [nc-udrp] Re: [council] Re: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC 
> 
> I agree with you Dan.  If we get so many responses that the Task Force
> believes it needs more time to review, we can jump that hurdle when we get
> there. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 6:09 PM
> To: Oscar A. Robles-Garay
> Cc: DNSO Secretariat; Chicoine, Caroline G.; council@dnso.org;
> nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Re: [council] Re: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC 
> 
> 
> I think it's safe to assume more than 'tens'. Hundreds are a safer bet.
> But I expect it's a bit late to change the process now that the
> questionnaire has been issued. However I don't expect this to be a
> problem since our aim was to find ideas not count 'votes'.  Besdes, no
> matter how we phrase the questions, the order of magnitude for the
> problem is the same, since we have to have some place on each
> questionnaire for readers to give us their ideas free form. That is to
> say where the answer is
> 'other_____  If so please explain___________________' 
> 
> "Oscar A. Robles-Garay" wrote: 
> 
>> How many responses are you expecting to have with this questionnaire ? 
>>
>> tens? hundreds? thousands? 
>>
>> In case you are expecting something bigger than "tens" I would say to
>> think in the review process and change the initial format for specific
>> questions/answers, it is not easy to read thousands of pages of
>> comments. 
>>
>> Oscar 
>>
>>
>> At 05:34 AM 11/6/2001, DNSO Secretariat wrote: 
>>
>>> Secretariat proposal : 
>>>
>>> May be the best thing to do is not to put anything on the Website,
>>> but to post the Questionnaire in a txt format to ga@dnso.org and to
>>> nc-udrp@dnso.org, with an automatic reply to nc-udrp@dnso.org so
>>> that people from the Task force can review the results.
>>> Then the only thing people will have to do is to reply to the mail
>>> and to fill in the blanks.
>>> Any comments ? 
>>>
>>> dnso.org webmaster. 
>>>
>>> On 05 Nov, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote :
>>> > Please find below the UDRP Review Questionnaire for posting on the
>>> ICANN and
>>> > DNSO's websites.  Once it has been posted by the Secretariat, I
>>> ask that
>>> > each Council member provide your Constituency with the link, and
>>> that Danny
>>> > provide the GA with a link (I do not have Danny's email handy and
>>> I cannot
>>> > get out of this email to access it so I will resend with a copy to
>>> him).
>>> >
>>> > As you will note, there are several "Other" areas and areas in
>>> which we are
>>> > requesting comments (rather than a "yes" or "no") and so I was
>>> unsure as to
>>> > whether I needed to actually leave blanks or not.  Let me know if
>>> any format
>>> > changes are required.  Also, how should the Task Force review the
>>> repsonse.
>>> > Will they be posted to nc-udrp@dnso.org or will we need to monitor
>>> a certain
>>> > list?  Please advise.
>>> >
>>> > Please email the list when it is posted so that are translators
>>> can then
>>> > translate it into French and Spanish.  Once translated, could our
>>> > translators please send the translated version to the Secretariat,
>>> for
>>> > posting, and again I ask that once posted the Council members
>>> advise their
>>> > Constituencies and Danny the GA.
>>> >
>>> > Finally, upon a review of the current draft of the Terms of
>>> Reference, I
>>> > noticed that it needs to be updated.  Specifically, the "November
>>> 2-December
>>> > 15" deadline for submitting questionnaire to public should be
>>> changed to
>>> > "November 2-December 17"  given I am two days late in getting it
>>> posted.
>>> > Likewise, please change the "November 1-January 15" deadline to
>>> November
>>> > 1-January 17", and the January 16-February 1" deadline to January
>>> > 17-February 13".  The February 14 deadline stays the same, but the
>>> entry
>>> > should read "Names Council votes on Report at its February 14th
>>> > teleconference"
>>> >
>>> > If you have any questions, please let me know.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks to all of those who participated in developing the
>>> questionnaire.
>>> > Please remember that our work has only just begun.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  <<UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC>>
>>
>> Top Level Domain .MX
>> Tel +52 (8)3875346
>> http://www.nic.mx 
>>
>> El contenido del presente mensaje de datos es confidencial. El Emisor
>> no es apoderado de NIC-Mexico ni tiene facultad alguna para obligar a
>> NIC-Mexico con la transmision y contenido del presente mensaje de
>> datos, incluyendo el (los) archivo(s) anexo(s).
> 
> --
> 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 
>