RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

["Katrina Burchell" <Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com>]

{\rtf1\ansi\deff0{\fonttbl {\f0\fmodern\fcharset0 Courier New;}{\f1\fswiss\fprq2 Arial;}}
{\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue255;}
\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\ulnone\f0\fs20\par
I have passed on the URL to INTA, AIM and ITMA for circulation to their members and I have seen all three organisations do that. Tomorrow I will meet with Nominet and ask them also to publicise it\par
regards\par
\par
Katrina\par
\pard\li360\cf0\protect\f1\fs16 -----Original Message-----\par
\protect0\pard\protect\fi-1440\li1800\tx1440\b From:\tab\b0 J. Scott Evans [SMTP:jse@adamspat.com]\par
\b Sent:\tab\b0 14 November 2001 15:29\par
\b To:\tab\b0 Milton Mueller; council@dnso.org; ga@dnso.org\par
\b Cc:\tab\b0 nc-udrp@dnso.org\par
\b Subject:\tab\b0 Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire\par
\protect0\pard\protect\li360\f0\fs20\par
Milton:\par
\par
I recently gave a speech at a conference of trademark practitioners and gave\par
everyone the URL for the questionnaire.  INTA has also circulated a grass\par
roots mailing to its members requesting participation.\par
\par
J. Scott Evans\par
----- Original Message -----\par
From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>\par
To: <council@dnso.org>; <ga@dnso.org>\par
Cc: <nc-udrp@dnso.org>\par
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:55 AM\par
Subject: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire\par
\par
\par
> I intend to express these concerns at the\par
> Names Council meeting today, but for online\par
> participants I will do it here, also.\par
>\par
> 1. We need to do a much better job of publicizing\par
> the availability of this questionnaire. It is\par
> a call for public comment but the public\par
> has no idea it exists, and circulation among\par
> the small coterie of dnso mailing lists will\par
> not do the trick.\par
>\par
> The NC or ICANN should issue a news release\par
> that solicits public comment and makes the\par
> URL for it well known. There are a number of\par
> reporters who follow ICANN closely who will\par
> pick this up. It should also be highlighted\par
> on ICANN's home page.\par
>\par
> 2. Flaw in survey form\par
> On question 13, we ask "who should be\par
> responsible for the selection of the provider."\par
> The response should be a check box but\par
> instead is a ranking from 1 - 5. I found this\par
> so confusing that I was unable to answer\par
> the question at all. I suspect many others will\par
> too. But Q 13 is a crucial question.\par
>\par
> In general, our members report finding the\par
> survey format difficult to understand and use.\par
>\par
>\par
> >>> "DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org> 11/08/01 15:52 PM >>>\par
> [To: council@dnso.org]\par
> [To: ga@dnso.org]\par
> [To: announce@dnso.org, liaison7c@dnso.org]\par
> _______________________________________________\par
>\par
> Please find below the url for the UDRP Review Questionnaire.\par
>  \cf1\ul http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html\cf0\ulnone\par
> Please complete the questionnaire online and "submit" at the end.\par
> Your participation is much appreciated.\par
> Thank you\par
>\par
> DNSO Secretariat\par
>\par
>\par
>\par
\par
\par
}