Dear All:
This message shall serve as my first official communication to the Task Force
regarding moving this process forward. I sent out a message earlier
requesting a response regarding your continued participation in this Task
Force. From the responses I have received, I believe the following people
wish to continue participating on this Task Force:
Caroline Chicoine, Jeff Neuman, Katrina Burchell, M. Scott Donahey,
Ethan Katsh, John Berryhill, Mac Waldbaum, Dan Steinberg
The following person cannot continue:
F. Peter Philips - as a CPR provider representative
I have not heard from the following people (or if I have their response was
erased during a computer glitch on my end):
Sarah Deutsch, Neil Dundas, Antonio Harris, Michael Palage, Dr.
Joelle Thibault; Tim Cole, Erik Wilbers, Joon Hyung Hong and Graeme
Dinwoodie.
If any of the above are still interested, please send me an e-mail to confirm
your continued participation before November 13, 2002.
In addition, I note that Asian Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Centre does not have a representative or panelist
representative on this Task Force and I would like to offer an invitation to
this organization to place a provider and panelist representative on the Task
Force. I think it would be valuable to have an Asian provider's
perspective on the issues considered by this group.
Given that this Task Force finds itself caught between the old ICANN policy
development process and the new PDP which is attached as Appendix 1 to the new
ICANN by-laws adopted in Shanghai, I propose that we continue this Task Force on
a hybrid basis.
My first proposal is that the Task Force aim to have a preliminary report
consisting of an analysis of the survey results and the various papers which
have been submitted to the Task Force by December 15, 2002. Once this
preliminary report is complete, I propose that we then take up the schedule set
out in the new PDP with just minor modifications. I have listed this
proposed schedule below and I have highlighted the changes below:
d. Collection of Information.
1. Constituency Statements. The
Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their
constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems
appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other
comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task
force chair (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35)
calendar days after presentation of the preliminary
report. Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the
following:
(i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear
statement of the constituency's position on the issue;
(ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a
clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members;
(iii) A clear statement of how the constituency
arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail
specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of
deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or
otherwise submitted their views;
(iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect
the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency;
and
(v) An analysis of the period of time that would
likely be necessary to implement the policy.
e. Task Force Report.
The task force, working with the Task Force chair,
shall compile the Constituency Statements, preliminary
report, and other information or reports, as applicable, into a
single document ("Draft Task Force Report") and distribute
the Draft Task Force Report to the
full Names Counsel no later than the spring ICANN
meeting. The task force shall have a final task force meeting
within ten (10) days after the date of distribution
of the Draft Task Force Report to deliberate the issues
and try and reach a Supermajority Vote. Within five (5) calendar days after
the final task force meeting, the task force shall create the final
task force report (the "Task Force Report") and post it on the Comment Site.
Each Task Force Report must include:
1. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote
position of the task force on the issue;
2. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear
statement of all positions espoused by task force members submitted within the
twenty-day timeline for submission of constituency reports. Each statement
should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying the position and (ii) the
constituency(ies) that held the position;
3. An analysis of how the issue would affect each
constituency of the task force, including any financial impact on the
constituency;
4. An analysis of the period of time that would
likely be necessary to implement the policy; and
5. The advice of any outside advisors appointed to
the task force by the Council, accompanied by a detailed statement of the
advisors' (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential
conflicts of interest.
As many of you know the terms of reference for this Task Force are
established. I have listed below those issues that we must tackle during
the next very chaotic months:
·
forum shopping
·
publication of complaints and
answers
·
appeals
·
reverse domain name hijacking
·
quality of decisions
·
speed of decisions
·
precedential affect of decisions within and
outside of UDRP
·
costs
·
continuity of decisions among and within
panels
·
res judicata effect of decisions within and
outside the UDRP
·
requirements for bad faith (i.e., domain name
registration and/or use)
·
fairness of Provider’s supplemental
rules
·
ability to amend complaint
Task Force
reviews results of questionnaire, as well as any third party studies directed
to the UDRP including without limitation the Syracuse University study, the
Max Plank Institute study and the Rose Communication study. Based on the results of the
questionnaire and those studies, the Task Force shall prepare a Report
summarizing the areas identified as needing reform and the recommendations to
implement such reform.
While it has been suggested by
Jeff Neuman that the survey results and/or the terms of reference are no
longer timely, I disagree. I believe the issues set out above still
remain very relevant. In addition, I think the survey results are a good
snap shot of the community response to the UDRP and I think it is important
that they are considered by this group.
I would like to have a
conference call for this group on November 20th if at all possible. To
this end, I would ask that everyone let me know what time U.S. Eastern
Standard time is most convenient for such a call. We need to begin
organizing and dividing up the work so that we can have ourselves a
preliminary report for December 15, 2002.
I would also ask that each of
you review my suggested strategy for moving forward and let me know if you
have any major objections/suggestions for me.
I look forward to hearing from
each of you very soon.
Kind regards.
J. Scott Evans
ADAMS,
SCHWARTZ & EVANS, P.A.
jse@adamspat.com
PH: (704)
375-9249
FX: (704) 375-0729
IV. Readjustment
of timeline
V. Division
of Labor and Benchmarks
VI. Any other
business
VII.
Adjourn