RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review - Draft Questionnaire
All dates as indicated has been changed.
The first NC telecon after February 1st has been determined for
Feb 14th, therefore November 13-December 13 replaced by Feb15-March-14.
The November 12 deadline for NC to vote on report shall be changed to be
the first NC teleconference after Feb 1. (we should have firm date soon)
The November 13-December 13 deadline to schedule implementation should be
changed to the one month period following the NC's vote.
and let me know if anything inaccurate.
| From CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com Tue Oct 2 15:54:50 2001
| From: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
| To: "'Dan Steinberg'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
| "Chicoine, Caroline G."
| Cc: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
| Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review - Draft Questionnaire
| Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:55:10 -0500
| MIME-Version: 1.0
| I have no problem and agree with your reasoning for changing the "front end"
| of the timeline so it does not appear that it took us so long to create the
| questionnaire. Elisabeth, please change the first deadline to October 1,
| 2001 - November 1, 2001.
| The reasons there is overlap in having the questionnaire submitted to the
| public and our review of the responses is that (1) we can start reviewing
| responses as they come in, and (2) at the same time we should be reviewing
| the outside studies mentioned in the Terms of Reference.
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:email@example.com]
| Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 6:24 PM
| To: Chicoine, Caroline G.
| Cc: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; 'DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org'
| Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review - Draft Questionnaire
| Ummmmmmm, can someone explain the dates to me?
| If we just got started and only recently got this committee fully staffed,
| on earht is the point of having the June 20-August 14th deadline for
| the questionnaire? Why not have a timeline that reflects reality and
| useful imformation? Someone is sure to wonder why it took so long to create
| questionnaire. Why not simply say Oct 1-November xx?
| As for the rest of the timeline, Ive been a project magager many times im my
| career and I find it a bit confusing. I 'think' I can explain the overlaps,
| without actually *knowing* why I have uncertainty. The timeline also appears
| fairly ambitious, so everyone feel free to tell me to shut up and get down
| substantive work ok?
| "Chicoine, Caroline G." wrote:
| > Per my email on Friday, this email is to provide you with a revised
| > (Elisabeth, can you just take these new dates from these email and modify
| > Terms of Reference or do you want me to edit it and send you a revised
| > version?)
| > The June 29-August 14th deadline for creating the questionnaire should be
| > changed to June 29-November 1, 2001.
| > The August 15-September 15 deadline for submitting the questionnaire to
| > public forum comment should be changed to November 2-December 15.
| > The August 15-October 31 deadline for the Task Force to review results of
| > questionnaire and prepare report should be changed to November 1-January
| > The November 1-November 11 deadline for Names Council review should be
| > changed to January 16-February 1.
| > The November 12 deadline for NC to vote on report shall be changed to be
| > the first NC teleconference after Feb 1. (we should have firm date soon)
| > The November 13-December 13 deadline to schedule implementation should be
| > changed to the one month period following the NC's vote.
| > I am also forwarding a copy of a stab I took at a proposed Questionnaire
| > promised. Is there anyone on the list that cannot open Word attachments?
| > The questionnaire includes questions based on input the interim committee
| > received to date. This is just something to get us started. I have no
| > presumptions that it is the right starting point or that any of it will
| > up in the final questionnaire so PLEASE do not start shooting the
| > As the terms of reference mention, there were several topics that we as
| > interim committee were made of aware of and we may want to structure the
| > questionnaire by subject matter for clarity. I also think that there will
| > be questions that we only want certain people to answer based on their
| > actual experience with the UDRP (see proposed questions directed to
| > complainant/respondent and panelist/provider).
| > With respect to the earlier emails regarding "UDRPs" used outside the
| > process, can I recommend that the following people review the policies and
| > identify the differences between them and ICANN's UDRP (I have chosen the
| > following people because they come from the countries or regions to which
| > these "other" UDRP apply):
| > Canada - Dr. Joelle Thibault
| > United Kingdom (Nominet) - Katrina Burchell
| > Japan - Joon Hyung Hong
| > Chile - Erick Iriarte
| > Can we have a report by next Monday?
| > We should continue to do this for "other" UDRPs as we become aware of
| > Welcome to the group and Milton and I look forward to working with all of
| > you over the next month to create the questionnaire. We apologize for the
| > delay. Again, please be mindful to keep your emails substantive and to the
| > point as a courtesy to us all who I am certain revive numerous emails each
| > day that we must wade through.
| > <<UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC>>
| > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| > Name: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC
| > UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC Type: WINWORD File
| > Encoding: base64
| Dan Steinberg
| SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
| 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
| Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
| J9B 1N1 e-mail:email@example.com