Re: [nc-udrp] DRAFT summary to date

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry for the omissions. Consider 3 and 4
added.

Ethan Katsh wrote:

>  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.
>

I believe (im not the originator of this question) that this points to
the existence of some 'superior' body, either a court or some body with
power to establish rules of procedures and the like.

>           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.
>

Can you suggest a better phrasing?

>
>
>
> 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.

I think this is a great question and will include it in DRAFT II as-is
until someone comes up with a better wording.

>
>
> 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.

I added this question and reworded it slightly to remove the words
'continue to' since it may not have been established that the work is
indeed 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)
>
--
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca