RE: [nc-udrp] Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:42:31 -0600

["Cole, Tim" <tcole@arb-forum.com>]

Please be sure that the question numbering is accurate.  For example,
question 21 refers to question 19, when I think it should be referring to
question 20.  Similarly, question 53 should refer to 52. 

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: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:42 PM
To: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
Subject: [nc-udrp] Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:42:31 -0600
Importance: High


I have asked ICANN to publish the questionnaire on its website, but based on
the email exchanges below, it wants me to confirm whether it is ready for
posting.  It does not want to post it if we are then going to ask for
changes or retract some of it.  

Are we all satisfied that the questionnaire in its current form is okay for
posting by ICANN? Personally, I think we should go forward since the
questionnaire has been out for a week and I think changing course snow would
be disruptive, but I need to hear your thoughts, ASAP please.


 -----Original Message-----
> From: Ethan Katsh [mailto:katsh@legal.umass.edu]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:43 AM
> To: nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Cc: council@dnso.org; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
> 
>          I have been away and if Dan's suggestions below have already been
> implemented, I would be very pleased. But if people are still filling out
a
> form that has the kind of format flaws Milton identifies below, or if
there
> are questions that are confusing people, these should be fixed as quickly
> as possible. Given all this, we might be fortunate that there is as yet no
> notice of the questionnaire on the ICANN home page or the ICANN UDRP page.
> This, however, should be fixed quickly as well.
> 
> Ethan
> 
> At 12:00 PM 11/14/01 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >Given the errors on the page (which are not limited to the ones you point
> >out and are duplicated in the french translation), should we not perhaps
> >wait a bit before publicizing?
> >
> >Also, does anyone know where the responses submitted are going to?
> >
> >I know people have been commenting already and I think it would be a good
> >idea to get a head start on looking at responses before the inevitable
> >final-filing deadline deluge.
> >
> >Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > I intend to express these concerns at the
> > > Names Council meeting today, but for online
> > > participants I will do it here, also.
> > >
> > > 1. We need to do a much better job of publicizing
> > > the availability of this questionnaire. It is
> > > a call for public comment but the public
> > > has no idea it exists, and circulation among
> > > the small coterie of dnso mailing lists will
> > > not do the trick.
> > >
> > > The NC or ICANN should issue a news release
> > > that solicits public comment and makes the
> > > URL for it well known. There are a number of
> > > reporters who follow ICANN closely who will
> > > pick this up. It should also be highlighted
> > > on ICANN's home page.
> > >
> > > 2. Flaw in survey form
> > > On question 13, we ask "who should be
> > > responsible for the selection of the provider."
> > > The response should be a check box but
> > > instead is a ranking from 1 - 5. I found this
> > > so confusing that I was unable to answer
> > > the question at all. I suspect many others will
> > > too. But Q 13 is a crucial question.
> > >
> > > In general, our members report finding the
> > > survey format difficult to understand and use.
> > >


Caroline G. Chicoine
Thompson Coburn LLP
One Firstar Plaza
St. Louis, MO.  63101
(314) 552-6499
(314) 552-7499 (fax)
cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com