Re: [nc-udrp] DRAFT summary to date

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

Dan -

        

A few not
necessarily related comments -

1. I had suggested the following four questions but 3 and 4 are, I think,
missing from the draft questionnaire. If so, can you add them?

        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?

2. A few questions were not clear to me -

1.  "Should some body be able to establish a rule of law that all panelists would be required to follow? " Not sure what this refers to or why the UDRP is not such a law.

2.  "Do you believe consistency of UDRP decisions among providers is a problem, and why?" Not sure what this refers to although I suspect the question concerns the studies that have revealed different decision patterns among the providers. If so, I think it should be rephrased.

3. Perhaps surprisingly, there is no question concerning the method
for choosing providers. Something like "Should the selection of a
provider continue to be the exclusive right of the complainant"
should be in the questionnaire. If there is a more neutral way of
phrasing this, perhaps someone else can give it a try.

4. Another question I would like added is "Should decisions be in
the public domain or should they continue to be the intellectual property
of the providers." While ICANN requires the posting of decisions,
from what I understand, at least some of the providers claim the
decisions as their intellectual property.

Ethan



At 12:59 AM 10/15/01 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>                                                       
> DRAFT 
>
> I have taken the liberty of accumulating the questionnaire suggestions
> posted to this list over the past few weeks. Since there was no objection
> to the grouping I proposed, it forms the basic framework.  I have
> added brief placeholder paragraphs to explain each section so that people
> wishing to comment can be more aware of the context of each of the
> questions.  There should probably be explanatory paragraphs for all
> the bullet sections as well so that commenters need not be fluent in the
> language of the law (in English) in order to respond to this
> questionnaire. Please note that I don't consider any of the explanatory
> paragraphs to be complete, merely drafts (as is all of the document for
> that matter)