RE: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

I have given our Task Force members a Feb 28th deadline to review the
responses from the DNSO version questionnaire, but they can no longer find a
link to the questionnaire to compare the responses against.  Can you please
provide us a link asap.

Louis, since we do not have the ICANN responses yet, it is not as urgent,
but we will need a link to the ICANN version also at some point.

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Chicoine, Caroline G. 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:58 AM
To: 'DNSO Secretariat'; 'Louis Touton'
Cc: 'MSD@tzmm.com'
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire


Glen and Louis, can you email the link where are Task Force members can find
each version?  Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: MSD@tzmm.com [mailto:MSD@tzmm.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:47 AM
To: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire


Where can we find a copy of the questionnaire?  The results are all answers,
without the questions.

Best regards.

M. Scott Donahey
Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli & Maser LLP
200 Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA  94306
Phone:  (650) 325-8666
Fax:      (650) 324-1808
msd@tzmm.com
www.tzmm.com

		"This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message."



-----Original Message-----
From: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:20 AM
To: Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire


I thought long and hard about that, but decided not to put any constraints.
I would like everyone's comments to be in a summary fashion that highlights
the good, the bad and the suggestions, trying to be as concise as possible.
Once we see everyone's summaries, and once we do the same exercise with the
ICANN responses, we can discuss the summaries and see if we can put together
a report that represents some sort of consensus.

-----Original Message-----
From: Katrina Burchell [mailto:Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:57 AM
To: nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire


Hi

Is there any format in which you want our review of the responses for
which we are responsible posted?

regards
Katrina

-----Original Message-----
From:	Chicoine, Caroline G. [SMTP:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
Sent:	Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:20 AM
To:	'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
Cc:	'Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us'; 'DNSO Secretariat'
Subject:	[nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire
Importance:	High

We are ready to distribute the response we received to the questionnaire
from the DNSO website.  The responses from the ICANN website will follow in
due course.

To begin with, there the following four individuals apparently did not
receive or respond to my email to confirm that they are in fact receiving
email at the nc_udrp@dnso.org email address:


gTLD Constituency rep - Jeff Neuman
CPR Provider - F. Peter Phillips
eResolution Provider - Dr. Joelle Thibault
WIPO Provider - Erik Wilbers


Jeff, since I received an email from you recently, I am asking the
secretariat to confirm that the above email is the email we have of record
in our nc-udrp@dnso.org email distribution list.  If you would like us to
use a different email address, please let us know ASAP.

For the others, can their respective panelists try to contact their
providers to get a hold of these individuals?

In total, except for the three Providers mentioned above, we have 21
members
to review the attached responses. All responses per question can be found
at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp1.txt
Each individual response per questionnaire can be found at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp2.txt

While everyone can look at all the responses in whatever format they want,
your minimum responsibility is to review the number of the responses from
the second link that are assigned to you as set forth below (the number of
the response is identified at the top of the record by ##<actual number of
response>###########################):


Sarah Deutsch #1-8
Neil Duncan Dundas #9-16
Jeff Neuman #17-24
J. Scott Evans #25-32
Antonio Harris #33-40
Michael Froomkin #41-48
Michael Palage #49-56
Katrina Burchell #57-65
M. Scott Donahey #66-73
F. Peter Phillips NONE
Ethan Katsh #74-81
Dr. Joelle Thibault NONE
James A. Carmody #82-89
Tim Cole #90-98
John Berryhill #99-107
Maxim Waldbaum #108-115
Erik Wilbers NONE
Dan Steinberg #116-123
Joon Hyung Hong #124-131
Graeme Dinwoodie #132-140
Erick Iriarte Ahon #141-148
Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah #149-155

I would like everyone to review their responses and provide a summary of
their findings within two weeks if possible, which would put us at Feb
28th.
Please advise Milton or I if you believe you cannot meet this deadline so
we
can either reassign or take on some ourselves.