RE: [nc-udrp] Re: [council] Re: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC

[James Carmody <carmodyjim@yahoo.com>]

Dear TF'ers:

For cocktail party talk, I wonder if the brave new
world of "shrink wrap arbitration agreements"  such as
we have with the UDRP will, could or should be
extended to other fields, such as small claims in
Internet commerce???  I hope to see some of you in LA.

Jim Carmody
--- "Chicoine, Caroline G."
<CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> wrote:
> I agree with you Dan.  If we get so many responses
> that the Task Force
> believes it needs more time to review, we can jump
> that hurdle when we get
> there.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 6:09 PM
> To: Oscar A. Robles-Garay
> Cc: DNSO Secretariat; Chicoine, Caroline G.;
> council@dnso.org;
> nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Re: [council] Re: UDRP Review
> Questionnaire.DOC
> 
> 
> I think it's safe to assume more than 'tens'.
> Hundreds are a safer bet.
> But I expect it's a bit late to change the process
> now that the
> questionnaire has been issued. However I don't
> expect this to be a
> problem since our aim was to find ideas not count
> 'votes'.  Besdes, no
> matter how we phrase the questions, the order of
> magnitude for the
> problem is the same, since we have to have some
> place on each
> questionnaire for readers to give us their ideas
> free form. That is to
> say where the answer is
> 'other_____  If so please
> explain___________________'
> 
> "Oscar A. Robles-Garay" wrote:
> 
> > How many responses are you expecting to have with
> this questionnaire ?
> >
> > tens? hundreds? thousands?
> >
> > In case you are expecting something bigger than
> "tens" I would say to
> > think in the review process and change the initial
> format for specific
> > questions/answers, it is not easy to read
> thousands of pages of
> > comments.
> >
> > Oscar
> >
> >
> > At 05:34 AM 11/6/2001, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> >
> >> Secretariat proposal :
> >>
> >> May be the best thing to do is not to put
> anything on the Website,
> >> but to post the Questionnaire in a txt format to
> ga@dnso.org and to
> >> nc-udrp@dnso.org, with an automatic reply to
> nc-udrp@dnso.org so
> >> that people from the Task force can review the
> results.
> >> Then the only thing people will have to do is to
> reply to the mail
> >> and to fill in the blanks.
> >> Any comments ?
> >>
> >> dnso.org webmaster.
> >>
> >> On 05 Nov, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote :
> >> > Please find below the UDRP Review Questionnaire
> for posting on the
> >> ICANN and
> >> > DNSO's websites.  Once it has been posted by
> the Secretariat, I
> >> ask that
> >> > each Council member provide your Constituency
> with the link, and
> >> that Danny
> >> > provide the GA with a link (I do not have
> Danny's email handy and
> >> I cannot
> >> > get out of this email to access it so I will
> resend with a copy to
> >> him).
> >> >
> >> > As you will note, there are several "Other"
> areas and areas in
> >> which we are
> >> > requesting comments (rather than a "yes" or
> "no") and so I was
> >> unsure as to
> >> > whether I needed to actually leave blanks or
> not.  Let me know if
> >> any format
> >> > changes are required.  Also, how should the
> Task Force review the
> >> repsonse.
> >> > Will they be posted to nc-udrp@dnso.org or will
> we need to monitor
> >> a certain
> >> > list?  Please advise.
> >> >
> >> > Please email the list when it is posted so that
> are translators
> >> can then
> >> > translate it into French and Spanish.  Once
> translated, could our
> >> > translators please send the translated version
> to the Secretariat,
> >> for
> >> > posting, and again I ask that once posted the
> Council members
> >> advise their
> >> > Constituencies and Danny the GA.
> >> >
> >> > Finally, upon a review of the current draft of
> the Terms of
> >> Reference, I
> >> > noticed that it needs to be updated. 
> Specifically, the "November
> >> 2-December
> >> > 15" deadline for submitting questionnaire to
> public should be
> >> changed to
> >> > "November 2-December 17"  given I am two days
> late in getting it
> >> posted.
> >> > Likewise, please change the "November 1-January
> 15" deadline to
> >> November
> >> > 1-January 17", and the January 16-February 1"
> deadline to January
> >> > 17-February 13".  The February 14 deadline
> stays the same, but the
> >> entry
> >> > should read "Names Council votes on Report at
> its February 14th
> >> > teleconference"
> >> >
> >> > If you have any questions, please let me know.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks to all of those who participated in
> developing the
> >> questionnaire.
> >> > Please remember that our work has only just
> begun.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >  <<UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC>>
> >
> > Top Level Domain .MX
> > Tel +52 (8)3875346
> > http://www.nic.mx
> >
> > El contenido del presente mensaje de datos es
> confidencial. El Emisor
> > no es apoderado de NIC-Mexico ni tiene facultad
> alguna para obligar a
> > NIC-Mexico con la transmision y contenido del
> presente mensaje de
> > datos, incluyendo el (los) archivo(s) anexo(s).
> 
> --
> 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
> 


=====
James A. Carmody, nn5o, carmody@lawyer.com
Voice Mail: 713 446 4234; eFax: 815 461 5321

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com