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

[Ethan Katsh <katsh@legal.umass.edu>]

         I'm sorry but I still think that the drop down boxes for question 
13 are confusing and check boxes should be used instead. Question 12 asks 
that the drop down boxes be used to rank the choices 1 to 5. Ranking the 
choices in question 13 does not, I think, make sense.

Ethan

At 09:42 PM 11/20/01 +0100, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote:
>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
>