RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire

["Cole, Tim" <tcole@arb-forum.com>]

The questionnaire looks like it is coming together nicely.  I like the
groupings and flow, though it may be a lot to ask for practically every
question to require more than a simple Yes/No response.  (We should also
have "N.A." options for most questions.)

Here are some thoughts I have about the revision:

1)  #20.  It's not clear to me why this question is duplicated at the top of
page two.

2)  All of the first page questions are worded as if the person answering
has participated in only one UDRP proceeding.  Many parties on both sides,
and certainly the attorneys, have participated in multiple proceedings and,
presumably, have had a variety of experiences.

3)  I think we should add a new question either before or after #2 (bottom
of page one):
If you were the Complainant and a transfer was ordered in your case, did you
experience difficulty having the order implemented?  If yes, please provide
details.
(This question is proposed in consideration of the concern I raised in an
earlier e-mail.  It is probably the number one complaint about the process
we hear from Complainants, while the complaints we hear from Respondents are
very well represented in this questionnaire already.  Also, there are very
few questions aimed at Complainants in this questionnaire.)

4)  #33.  I propose a re-wording of this question to clarify what is being
asked:
Do you believe both registration and use [in bad faith] should be required
[to satisfy the] bad faith [requirement]?  (My changes in brackets.  This
more closely follows the language of the Policy.)

5)  #43a. I suggest the following addition to the question:
[Under what circumstances, if any, s]hould a pending....  [same as original,
but remove the Why/why not at the end.]  (I think this will provide us more
useful answers.)

6)  #40.  I believe there is a typo in this question.  It should read
...requested by [Respondent]... otherwise the question makes no sense.  (The
Respondent pays nothing when Complainant requests a three member panel.)

7)  #40.  If #40 is still necessary, then the corollary should be there for
the Complainant:
Should a Complainant get a refund on the fee for a three person panel
requested by the Complainant when the Respondent defaults and, if so, what
portion?



Hope these suggestions are useful.


Timothy S. Cole
Assistant Director of Arbitration
National Arbitration Forum
651.604.6725
800.474.2371
mailto:tcole@arb-forum.com
http://www.arb-forum.com/



-----Original Message-----
From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 5:23 PM
To: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
Subject: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire
Importance: High



> Sorry for the delay, but here is the most current version of the
> questionnaire.  I have taken the liberty to move some questions around but
> for the time being have kept the numbering the same so people could
> compare it against their earlier notes and versions.  (In other words, the
> numbering currently makes no sense, but just disregard) I have put in
> comments to notify you all when I changed any language or added new
> questions.  
> 
> I also believe that we need to have an introductory paragraph to the
> questionnaire a draft of which is provided below.
> 
"Pursuant to the UDRP Review and Evaluation Terms of Reference, version 2
(which can be found at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html) the
UDRP Review and Evaluation Task Force hereby submits a questionnaire to
solicit public comment through a bottom up, consensus-building DSNO process
regarding various aspects of the existing UDRP.  The Task Force has drafted
this questionnaire with an eye towards not only identifying potential areas
of reform, but also generating useful suggestions to the extent that
modifications to the UDRP are suggested.  Therefore, to the extent that your
responses are critical to the existing UDRP, we request that your responses
also include proposed solutions. Each individual should submit only one
response to this questionnaire.   There is absolutely no advantage in
submitting multiple responses since the Task Force will not be collecting
any statistics based on the responses it receives.  Rather, it is only
interested in the merits and the substance of the comments it receives.

This questionnaire is initially being submitted in English, but Spanish and
French versions will be issued shortly. 

We thank you for your time and consideration in completing this
questionnaire.

UDRP Review and Evaluation Task Force
November 1, 2001"

> Given my delay in getting this to you, please let me have your thoughts by
> 9 am central standard time on Thursday, November 1st. Except with respect
> to the new or revised stuff, this is not the time to be asking for a major
> overhaul of the questionnaire.  You all have had this month to do that.
> Assuming no major changes or objections are raised, I plan to incorporate
> any final comments and send the questionnaire to the DNSO Secretariat for
> posting to the ICANN website, the DNSO website, the GA and the
> Constituency websites later that day on Thursday, Nov. 1.  I will also
> send a copy to Erick and Dan for translation into Spanish and French,
> respectively.  If there is anyone else that could translate the
> questionnaire any other languages, it would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Once the questionnaire is out, we still have work to do.  First and
> foremost, we need to be reviewing results as they come in. I will check
> with the Secretariat how we will receive copies of the response and get
> back to you on that. Second, we will need to also review third party
> studies, a list of which I will provide to you shortly.
> 
If anyone has any questions, please let me know.



>  <<UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC>>