Summaries [Was Re: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLYUPON RECEIPT]

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I will be happy to take whatever paper you wish.  In so doing, it would
be helpful to know what you consider to be an 'objective' summary.  To
anchor this discussion I offer a no doubt quite biased summary of my
paper for your critique.  Please let me know how it differs from what you
have in mind:

+++Start++

Summary of A.Michael Froomkin, ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"
-- Causes and (Partial) Cures, 67 Brooklyn Law Review 605 (2002),
available online http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf

The author, a participant in both the WIPO and UDRP drafting processes,
provides a detailed comparison of the UDRP to WIPO's prior proposals for a
domain name dispute resolution procedure. He argues that compared to the
attention paid to the substantive parts of the UDRP, the procedural
provisions received insufficient attention.

He advocates the seventeen following changes in the procedural parts of
the UDRP:

1. The UDRP should be changed to remove any incentive for arbitration
providers to be "plaintiff-friendly," and to equalize both sides'
influence on the selection of the arbitrators.

2. Plausible claims of arbitration-provider bias need an appropriate
forum. 

3. Parties need enhanced means to get information about arbitrators'
possible conflicts of interest and to act on that information. 

4. Complainants should be required to post a small bond that would be
forfeited in the event of a finding that the complaint was brought in bad
faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. 

5. Consumers should have access to an authoritative copy of the UDRP in
their national language.

6. Providers' methods of recruiting and assigning arbitrators should be
open and auditable. Some thought should be given to the issues of panelist
training, qualification, and selection, especially with an eye towards
ensuring a broad pool of arbitrators, and removing opportunities for
provider manipulation of panelist selection. 

7. Complaints and replies should be published online along with decisions
in order to increase confidence in the justice of outcomes, subject to
redaction of confidential business information which should be segregated
in limited exhibits. Providers should be required to archive all briefs
and exhibits for several years, and to make them available after a
reasonable time to researchers and others who want to study them, with
some provision for redaction of the most sensitive personal and financial
data. 

8. UDRP Arbitrators should be instructed even more explicitly as
to what constitutes meeting the complainant's burden of proof.

9. The UDRP should specify that neither settlement negotiations nor
solicited offers of sale constitute evidence of registrant bad faith. 

10.  Either the UDRP should spell out in some detail what sort of evidence
will be considered proof of the existence of a common law mark, or the
UDRP should be limited to registered marks. 

11.  UDRP decisions should be final within the system -- any complaint
that elicits a reply should not be subject to a "dismissal without
prejudice" that invites complainants to try and try again.

12. The UDRP should not allow parties even to attempt to undermine a final
decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

13.  The rules should require actual notice or greater efforts reasonably
calculated to achieve actual notice, especially in countries with inferior
postal systems. 

14. Given that many respondents are consumers or small businesses, the
minimum time to respond to a complaint should be increased to sixty days
to reflect the amount of time it takes to locate and brief counsel,
collect facts, and write a brief to which no amendments are permitted. 

15. Complainants should be penalized for filing lengthy attachments and
exhibits in an attempt to evade word limits, and for submitting most
non-digitized material. Either behavior should entitle complainants to
extra time on a graduated scale depending on the severity of the offense.

16. Providers need to be prevented from writing supplemental rules that
violate the UDRP or unfairly favor either party. Parties need a means to
challenge supplemental rules, and ICANN or some other party needs to be
ready to decide these challenges quickly.

17.  Procedures need to be created to help unrepresented parties represent
themselves more effectively, and especially to help them select an
arbitrator for three member panels. 

++finish++

On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, J. Scott Evans wrote:

> Michael:
> 
> I am afraid I may have offended you and that was not my intention.  I simply
> think it would be useful to have a new set of eyes on your paper for
> preparing the summary.  I have stated on the calls that I want the summaries
> to be objective, just the facts.  That request went to everyone, not just
> you.
> 
> I do not agree that the surveys are a waste of time.  That being said, I
> would never want you to work on part of the project if that is how you feel.
> Accordingly, if you would like to work on summarizing one of the other 11
> papers, we'd be more than happy for your kind assistance.
> 
> Again, no ill-will or insult meant by my earlier message and I apologize if
> I have offended you.
> 
> I look forward to hearing which paper you'd like to assist in summarizing.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> J. Scott
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
> To: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>
> Cc: "M. Scott Donahey" <sdonahey@tzllp.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>;
> <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>;
> <ndundas@africaip.com>; <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <michael@palage.com>;
> <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; <katsh@legal.umass.edu>; <carmody@lawyer.com>;
> <tcole@arb-forum.com>; <jberryhill@ddhs.com>; <mwaldbaum@salans.com>;
> <erik.wilbers@wipo.int>; <sythesis@videotron.ca>; <joonh@chollian.net>;
> <gdinwood@kentlaw.edu>; <ramesh@mimos.my>; <faia@amauta.rep.net.pe>;
> <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON RECEIPT
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the comment on my objectivity.  I thought the point of the
> > summaries was to list the suggestions, in which case I really cannot see
> > the point of your complaint. If the point of the summaries is to
> > editorialize on them, then I object to the procedure.
> >
> > I think the survey is a waste of time, and the summaries of it doubly so.
> > If I'm going to summarize anything, I'll take a paper - but I won't
> > editorialize on it in the "summary".
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, J. Scott Evans wrote:
> >
> > > Michael:
> > >
> > > My hope is to receive an objective summary of the paper.  I appreciate
> your
> > > willingness to assist; however, I would prefer that you help out with
> > > another paper or, in the alternative, help with the remaining survey
> > > results.  There will be plenty of time during our dialogue for you to
> > > advocate the position(s) set forth in your paper.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your continued participation and I hope you feel better soon.
> > >
> > > J. Scott
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
> <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
> > > To: "M. Scott Donahey" <sdonahey@tzllp.com>
> > > Cc: <jse@adamspat.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>;
> <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>;
> > > <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; <ndundas@africaip.com>;
> > > <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <michael@palage.com>; <philip.sheppard@aim.be>;
> > > <katsh@legal.umass.edu>; <carmody@lawyer.com>; <tcole@arb-forum.com>;
> > > <jberryhill@ddhs.com>; <mwaldbaum@salans.com>; <erik.wilbers@wipo.int>;
> > > <sythesis@videotron.ca>; <joonh@chollian.net>; <gdinwood@kentlaw.edu>;
> > > <ramesh@mimos.my>; <faia@amauta.rep.net.pe>; <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:28 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON
> RECEIPT
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So would I ;>
> > > > PS. Apologies for missing the call. I caught my wife's bug.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, M. Scott Donahey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would be happy to prepare an executive summary of Professor
> Froomkin's
> > > > > paper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards.
> > > > >
> > > > > M. Scott Donahey
> > > > > Tomlinson Zisko LLP
> > > > > 200 Page Mill Rd.
> > > > > Palo Alto, CA  94306
> > > > > Phone:  (650) 325-8666
> > > > > Fax:      (650) 324-1808
> > > > > sdonahey@tzllp.com
> > > > > www.tzllp.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Our firm name has been changed to Tomlinson Zisko LLP.  My new
> e-mail
> > > > > address is  sdonahey@tzllp.com, although e-mail sent to my old
> e-mail
> > > > > address will continue to be delivered to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
> and
> > > may
> > > > > contain confidential and privileged information which is protected
> by
> > > the
> > > > > attorney-client privilege or other grounds for confidentiality or
> > > > > non-disclosure.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> > > distribution by
> > > > > any means 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: jse@adamspat.com [mailto:jse@adamspat.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:51 AM
> > > > > To: nc-udrp@dnso.org; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com;
> > > > > sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; ndundas@africaip.com; jse@adamspat.com;
> > > > > harris@cabase.org.ar; froomkin@law.miami.edu; michael@palage.com;
> > > > > philip.sheppard@aim.be; sdonahey@tzllp.com; katsh@legal.umass.edu;
> > > > > carmody@lawyer.com; tcole@arb-forum.com; jberryhill@ddhs.com;
> > > > > mwaldbaum@salans.com; erik.wilbers@wipo.int; sythesis@videotron.ca;
> > > > > joonh@chollian.net; gdinwood@kentlaw.edu; ramesh@mimos.my;
> > > > > faia@amauta.rep.net.pe
> > > > > Cc: DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org
> > > > > Subject: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON RECEIPT
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear All:
> > > > >
> > > > > My apologies again for the technical glitch that kept you all from
> > > receiving
> > > > > this message yesterday.  As we agreed on the call earlier, please
> review
> > > the
> > > > > materials listed in this message and attached
> > > > > hereto.  By Wednesday, December 11, 2002, everyone should identify
> the
> > > area
> > > > > in which they wish to concentrate their efforts as we distill this
> > > > > information.  Essentially, I envision two groups:  1)
> > > > > working on the summarizing and identifying issues presented in the
> 11
> > > papers
> > > > > listed below and 2) another group working with the survey responses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please post all discussion to the list.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you again for your time and dedication.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards.
> > > > >
> > > > > J. Scott
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > > > ----
> > > > >
> > > > > A. The most current version of the "UDRP Review and Evaluation,
> Terms
> > > > > of Reference" document can be found at
> > > > >
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
> > > > >
> > > > > B. DNSO UDRP Questionnaire (includes French and Spanish links) -
> > > > >
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html
> > > > >
> > > > > C. All responses (155) 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
> > > > >
> > > > > D. ICANN UDRP Questionnaire (see attachment below)
> > > > >
> > > > > E. Responses to ICANN Questionnaire (see attachment below)
> > > > >
> > > > > F. Task Force summaries (see attachments below)
> > > > > Katrina Burchell (1-9, 56-65)
> > > > > J. Scott Evans (25-32)
> > > > > Maxim H. Waldbaum (108-115)
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Hong (124-131)
> > > > > M. Scott Donahey (66-73)
> > > > > James A. Carmody (82-89)
> > > > > Neil Dundas (9-16)
> > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman (17-24)
> > > > > Timothy S. Cole (90-98)
> > > > > Graeme Dinwoodie (132-140)
> > > > >
> > > > > G. Chicoine "summary of summaries" (see attachment)
> > > > > In general, I identified the following POTENTIAL areas of reform.
> > > > >
> > > > > Procedural Issues
> > > > > (1) Make the process of electronic versus paper filing of complaint
> and
> > > > > exhibits more clear.
> > > > > (2) Improve searchability of decisions
> > > > > (3) Difficulty finding Registrar's rules that applied at the time
> the
> > > > > Registrant registered the domain name
> > > > > (4) Improve accuracy, availability and searchability of Whois
> > > information
> > > > > (5) Improve the effectuation of a transfer/cancellation order
> > > > > (6) Revisit who should select provider
> > > > > (7) Amendment of complaints under certain limited circumstances
> > > > > (8) Amendment of responses under certain limited circumstances
> > > > > (9) Transfer of case to another Provider under certain limited
> > > circumstances
> > > > > (10) Uniformity of supplemental rules
> > > > > (11) Public accessibility of complaints and answers with certain
> > > > > limitations/exceptions
> > > > > (12) Central availability of UDRP decisions
> > > > > (13) No refiling of UDRP involving same domain name and same
> registrant
> > > > > except under certain limited circumstances.
> > > > > (14) Ability to withdraw complaint, but under certain circumstances
> and
> > > with
> > > > > certain consequences (with prejudice, fine)
> > > > > (15) instituting some sort of penalty for a finding of reverse
> domain
> > > name
> > > > > hijacking
> > > > > (16) impose quality control measures with respect to provider and
> > > panelists
> > > > > (17) allow for partial refund of provider fee depending if and when
> a
> > > case
> > > > > settles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Substantive Issues
> > > > > (1) Interpretation of "identical or confusingly similar to"
> > > > > (2) Whether to include some affirmative defenses expressly in the
> policy
> > > > > (3) Mixed view on precedential value of decisions
> > > > > (4) Mixed view on ability to appeal (if so, some recommendations
> > > included
> > > > > same provider, but different panelists; different provider;
> appealing
> > > party
> > > > > pays for appeal, but costs for appellant if
> > > > > successful; level of deference with respect to findings of fact
> "abuse
> > > of
> > > > > discretion and with respect to law" or "de novo")
> > > > > (5) changing "registration and use" to "registration or use"
> > > > > (6) Allow pending trademark applications as a basis for establishing
> > > rights
> > > > > in a mark provided use has occurred
> > > > > (7) no expansion of scope of disputes handled under UDRP except as
> set
> > > forth
> > > > > above
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > H. Third party studies/papers.   Caroline could not find a link for
> the
> > > Rose
> > > > > Communications, S.L. paper so it is attached.
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" - Causes and
> > > > > (Partial) Cures, Prof. A. Michael Froomkin -
> > > > > http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) Max Plank Institute Study -
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.intellecprop.mpg.de/Online-Publikationen/2002/UDRP-study-final-02
> > > > > ..pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) Rough Justice, Prof. Milton Mueller -
> > > > > http://www.acm.org/usacm/IG/roughjustice.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > (4) UDRP-A Success Story? A Rebuttal to the Analysis and Conclusions
> > > > > of Professor Milton Mueller in Rough Justice, N. Branthover (INTA) -
> > > > > http://www.inta.org/downloads/tap_udrp_1paper2002.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > (5) Divergence in the UDRP and the Need for Appellate Review, M.
> > > > > Scott Donahey - http://www.udrplaw.net/DonaheyPaper.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > (6) Designing Non-National Systems: The Case of the Uniform Domain
> > > > > Name Dispute Resolution Policy, L. Helfer and G. Dinwoodie -
> > > > > http://www.kentlaw.edu/depts/ipp/intl-courts/docs/dh.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > (7) Fair.com, Prof. Michael Geist -
> > > > > http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > (8) Fundamentally Fair.com? An Update on Bias Allegations and the
> > > > > ICANN UDRP, Prof. Michael Geist -
> > > > > http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/fairupdate.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > (9) The UDRP by All Accounts Works Effectively - Rebuttal to
> > > > > Analysis and Conclusions of Professor Michael Geist in "Fair.com?"
> and
> > > > > "Fundamentally Fair.com?", INTA Internet Committee -
> > > > > http://www.inta.org/downloads/tap_udrp_2paper2002.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > (10) A Response to INTA's Rebuttal of Fair.com (Prof. Michael Geist)
> > > > > - http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistintaresp.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > (11) Katsh Memo addressed to the Task Force at
> > > > > http://www.disputes.org/udrp/
> > > > >
> > > > > (12) Patrick L. Jones article at
> > > > > http://www.udrplaw.net/UDRPReview1.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Useful web site at
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.udrplaw.net/UDRPReview.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Caroline G. Chicoine - cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com (IPC)
> > > > > Sarah Deutsch - sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com (Business)
> > > > > Neil Duncan Dundas - ndundas@africaip.com (ccTLD)
> > > > > J. Scott Evans - jse@adamspat.com (Chair)
> > > > > Antonio Harris - harris@cabase.org.ar (ISP)
> > > > > Michael Froomkin - froomkin@law.miami.edu (NCDNH)
> > > > > Michael Palage - michael@palage.com (Registrar)
> > > > > Philip Sheppard -philip.sheppard@aim.be (Complainant)
> > > > > M. Scott Donahey - msd@tzmm.com (CPR Panelist)
> > > > > Ethan Katsh - katsh@legal.umass.edu (eResolution Panelist)
> > > > > James A. Carmody - carmody@lawyer.com (NAF Panelist)
> > > > > Tim Cole - tcole@arb-forum.com (NAF Provider)
> > > > > John Berryhill - jberryhill@ddhs.com (Respondent)
> > > > > Maxim Waldbaum - mwaldbaum@salans.com (WIPO Panelist)
> > > > > Erik Wilbers - erik.wilbers@wipo.int (WIPO Provider)
> > > > > Dan Steinberg - synthesis@videotron.ca (GA Member)
> > > > > Joon Hyung Hong - joonh@chollian.net (Independent ADR expert)
> > > > > Graeme Dinwoodie - gdinwood@kentlaw.edu (Independent academic
> expert)
> > > > > Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah - ramesh@mimos.my (Independent ADR expert)
> > > > > Erick Iriarte - faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe (ccTLD)
> > > > > Chirstopher To - christopher@hkiac.org (ADNDRC Provider)
> > > > > Dr. Xue Hong -  rainbow@cnnic.net.cn (ADNDRC Panelist)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > > > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> > > > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > > > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> > > >                         -->It's warm here.<--
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                         -->It's warm here.<--
> >
> >
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--