<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON RECEIPT
- To: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>, "'J. Scott Evans'" <jse@adamspat.com>, "UDRP Task Force" <nc-udrp@dnso.org>, "SARAH B. DEUTSCH" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>, <ndundas@africaip.com>, <froomkin@law.miami.edu>, "Michael Palage" <michael@palage.com>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, <msd@tzmm.com>, <katsh@legal.umass.edu>, <carmody@lawyer.com>, <tcole@arb-forum.com>, <jberryhill@ddhs.com>, "Mac Waldbaum" <mwaldbaum@salans.com>, <erik.wilbers@wipo.int>, <sythesis@videotron.ca>, <joonh@chollian.net>, <gdinwood@kentlaw.edu>, <ramesh@mimos.my>, <faia@amauta.rep.net.pe>
- Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON RECEIPT
- From: "Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:30:47 -0300
- Cc: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>
- References: <1711F1517784D24A8F10B158DCD0A31B023DD61A@mail1>
- Sender: owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org
I would be happy to assist with work on the
survey
responses. I had a lot of practice in this on
the
Whois Task Force.
Tony Harris
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:04
PM
Subject: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials
-URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON RECEIPT
J.
Scott, I would be happy to work on the survey responses since I am already
familiar with the DNSO ones.
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)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|