RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

["Neuman, Jeff" <jeff.neuman@NeuLevel.biz>]

I am the representative of the Registry Constituency and I will forward this
e-mail to the gTLD Registries to provide some of the answers to the
questions below.  We will certainly also put a link to the questionnaire on
our gTLD Website.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
NeuLevel, Inc. 
Loudoun Tech Center
46000 Center Oak Plaza
Building X
Sterling, VA 20166
p: (202) 533-2733
f: (202) 533-2970
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.biz

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is
privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail
message and any attachments hereto in error and that any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 11:53 PM
To: J. Scott Evans; Chicoine, Caroline G.
Cc: UDRP Task Force
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire


Jay:

I am the representative of the Registrar Constituency on the UDRP Task
Force. Although me and the Registrar Constituency have closely monitored the
workings of this task force we have been busy with other more pressing
issues. The UDRP Task Force was a topic of discussion in Marina del Rey, and
we intend on contributing to the Task Force going forward.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> J. Scott Evans
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:03 PM
> To: Chicoine, Caroline G.
> Cc: UDRP Task Force
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
>
>
> Yes and Jeff Neuman is the VP of Policy for Neulevel which runs
> .biz.  I can
> call Elana Broitman at Register.com if you all would like.  Also,
> I can call
> Mike Palage at Affilias.  Let me know.  I'll be glad to make the calls.  I
> could also call and lobby Miriam Shapiro at Verisign.
>
> J. Scott
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chicoine, Caroline G. <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
> To: 'Dan Steinberg' <synthesis@videotron.ca>; Katrina Burchell
> <Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com>
> Cc: <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:50 AM
> Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
>
>
> > I have forwarded the requests for outreach to the NC and specifically
> asked
> > the registry and registrar constituencies to help us out in any way they
> > can.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
> > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:43 AM
> > To: Katrina Burchell
> > Cc: nc-udrp@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
> >
> >
> > Well, I have been thinking about it too.  The people I am
> technically here
> > to
> > represent (the DNSO GA) know about the URL.
> > I was thinking about representation.  Katrina is here to represent the
> > complainant.  John Berryhill is here to represent respondents.  But John
> > does
> > not know every respondent, let alone the potential respondents.
>  So I got
> to
> > thinking 'what constitutes a respondent?' The one thing they
> all have is a
> > domain name (held in good, bad or partially-cloudy faith).
> Domain holders
> > have
> > to use registries to register and/or modify their domain information.  I
> > will
> > see what Verisign can do (no promises as I dont speak for them,
> I can only
> > ask). Putting the URL to the UDRP questionnaire on their pages
> would give
> it
> > great visibility.  Does anyone on this list have contacts at any of the
> > other
> > registrars/registries?
> >
> >
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html is
> > the
> > URL for those (like me) that manage to misplace it every time
> they want to
> > access it.
> >
> > Katrina Burchell wrote:
> >
> > > Dear task force colleagues
> > >
> > > although I am on the task force to represent the complainant,
> I tried to
> > > think of some ways in which we can publicise the
> questionnaire to others
> > > who might have a different point of view.  I think that many
> complainants
> > > and their representatives will complete the questionnaire and since
> there
> > > are more organised groups in the field of trade marks it is relatively
> > > simple to get the message out.  However that will mean that
> the answers
> we
> > > receive are biased and not representing other interests.
> > >
> > > these are some ideas I came up with - does anyone have any contacts
> where
> > > we can try and get in touch with the right people?
> > >
> > > the press - either the general press or the internet or IT specialist
> > press
> > > search engines - can we get the questionnaire on some search
> engines or
> > > banners?
> > > CENTR - I came across this organisation via my .eu
> involvement but can't
> > > recall the lady's name I met there - I have forwarded the
> link onto the
> > > dot eu discussion site anyway.
> > > ISPA - can they help?
> > >
> > > Nominet (the UK NIC) are helping me get in touch with a couple of UK
> based
> > > organisations which have contacts with consumers associations
> and other
> > > interested parties because they have experience of trying to poll
> opinion
> > > when they introduced their new dispute resolution policy.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, the first decision under this new procedure has been
> issued
> > > and is on their site at
> > > http://www.nic.uk/drs/decisions/lilly-v-clayton.html  .  It goes in
> favour
> > > of the trade mark owner (so some of you may be annoyed!) but the facts
> > > really speak for themselves and the respondent didn't submit any
> evidence.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Katrina
> > >
> > > Trade Mark Counsel
> > > Unilever
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:   Chicoine, Caroline G. [SMTP:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
> > > Sent:   15 November 2001 17:11
> > > To:     'council@dnso.org'
> > > Cc:     'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
> > > Subject:        FW: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
> > >
> > > We have received a request to see if the registrars and/or registries
> > would
> > > be willing to include a link or reference to the UDRP Review
> questionnaire
> > > on their websites.  I am simply passing this on to the council and in
> > > particulr the Registry and Registrar constituencies to the extent they
> can
> > > help us.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jse@adamspat.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:27 PM
> > > To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.; nc-udrp@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
> > >
> > > I am not so sure that the providers could provide the URL through some
> > > automatic mechanism for fear of running afoul of spam provisions and
> > > privacy
> > > provisions that differ from country to country.  That being said, I
> think
> > > groups like ICANNWATCH.ORG and ICANNBLOG.ORG could get the message out
> to
> > > some interested parties.  I also think that the providers could post a
> > > message and the URL on their home pages.  Lastly, we might ask the
> > > registrars and registries to assist us by positing the URL on their
> sites
> > > and sending the URL to parties who receive their electronic updates.
> > >
> > > Those are about all the suggestions I have.  If anyone is connected to
> the
> > > press, give them a call.
> > >
> > > J. Scott
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <john@johnberryhill.com>
> > > To: <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:05 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
> > >
> > > >
> > > > While trademark owners can be reached through organizations such as
> INTA
> > > and
> > > > so forth, there are no corresponding organizations of domain name
> > > registrants
> > > > or UDRP respondents (not all of whom, of course, are non-trademark
> > > owners).
> > > >
> > > > I am wondering, since the UDRP providers have email
> addresses for all
> of
> > > the
> > > > UDRP respondents, whether it would be possible to send respondents
> > notice
> > > of
> > > > the survey, in much the same way that attorneys who have
> ever filed a
> > > UDRP
> > > > complaint (myself included) receive various "updates", informative
> > > notices,
> > > > and even color brochures, from the UDRP providers.  I gather that
> > similar
> > > > mass mailings are not sent to respondents, but see no reason why
> > > respondents
> > > > cannot be informed of the survey in this manner.
> > > >
> > > > That would certainly be an easy thing to include in notifications
> > > relating
> > > to
> > > > disputes presently pending, or for which notice of
> commencement or of
> > > > decision is to be sent to respondents within the near
> future.  Sort of
> > an
> > > "if
> > > > you've enjoyed being confused by people you've never heard of, being
> put
> > > off
> > > > by a string of lawyers who had no idea what you were talking about
> > before
> > > you
> > > > eventually found one who did, scheduling time to consult with that
> > lawyer
> > > who
> > > > *might* return your phone calls, trying to gather evidence
> refuting a
> > > common
> > > > law trademark claim, justifying your existence, explaining
> you are not
> a
> > > > thief, and jumping through all our procedural hoops on 20
> days notice,
> > > then
> > > > let us know at [URL]".  Although I'm sure that others could word the
> > > > notification more diplomatically than I would.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>