[nc-udrp] A few more questions

[Ethan Katsh <katsh@legal.umass.edu>]

A few more suggested questions:

         1. If you have been an arbitrator, was there information in prior 
decisions that you would have liked to have but was difficult to find?
         2. If you have been a defendant, was the process sufficiently 
clear to you?
         3. If you have been a defendant and did not respond to the 
complaint, why did you decide not to respond?
         4. If you have been a defendant and you did respond to the 
complaint, were you represented by counsel? If not, why not?

Ethan

At 02:40 PM 10/3/01 -0500, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote:
>Not a problem, and your submission was completely appropriate, I just
>thought each author could get us more focused faster.  I encourage everyone
>on the list to read these articles to help stimulate the discussion.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: M. Scott Donahey [mailto:MSD@tzmm.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 2:27 PM
>To: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; MSD@tzmm.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review
>
>
>I apologize if my submissions were inappropriate.  I thought that they might
>
>stimulate others to think of questions that I had not considered.  In
>response to the suggestion, I propose that the following issues be addressed
>
>in the panel questionnaire:
>1.      Should panelists be disqualified from representing parties before
>the
>UDRP?
>2.      Should panelists' law firms be disqualified from representing
>parties
>before the UDRP?
>3.      Should panelists (and their law firms) be disqualified from
>representing
>parties in domain name disputes before national courts?
>4.      Is it more important to you that the process be expeditious, or that
>the
>process be thorough?  Explain.
>5.      Is it more important to you that process be inexpensive, or that the
>
>process be thorough?  Explain.
>6.      Do you feel that the fees being charged by the providers are
>appropriate?
>If not, how do you feel they should be changed?
>7.      Do you feel that the fees being paid to the panelists are
>appropriate?  If
>not, how do you feel they should be changed?
>8.      Should some body be able to establish a rule of law that all
>panelists
>would be required to follow?
>
>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:   Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:55 AM
>To:     MSD@tzmm.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
>Subject:        RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review
>
>While I appreciate people forwarding such articles for us to read, for the
>authors of such articles, could you please advise us what if any additional
>issues (not your conclusions) are covered by your papers that are not
>addressed in the current questionnaire and how you propose they be added.
>Likewise if you believe an issue is covered but you do not like the way it
>was presented in the questionnaire, please provide us with your alternate
>suggestions.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Donahey, M. Scott [mailto:MSD@tzmm.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:54 PM
>To: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
>Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review
>
>
>Colleagues:
>
>         As has Professor Froomkin, I have given much thought to revising the
>UDRP process.  Some of those thoughts have been previously expressed in
>articles.  I forward these articles to you for your consideration.  I would
>appreciate receiving your comments to the attached.  Thank you.
>
>         <<MSD0446.DOC>>  <<MSD0507.DOC>>  <<MSD0520.DOC>>  <<MIL2047.DOC>>
>
>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."
>
>