RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

I have forwarded the requests for outreach to the NC and specifically asked
the registry and registrar constituencies to help us out in any way they
can.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:43 AM
To: Katrina Burchell
Cc: nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire


Well, I have been thinking about it too.  The people I am technically here
to
represent (the DNSO GA) know about the URL.
I was thinking about representation.  Katrina is here to represent the
complainant.  John Berryhill is here to represent respondents.  But John
does
not know every respondent, let alone the potential respondents.  So I got to
thinking 'what constitutes a respondent?' The one thing they all have is a
domain name (held in good, bad or partially-cloudy faith).  Domain holders
have
to use registries to register and/or modify their domain information.  I
will
see what Verisign can do (no promises as I dont speak for them, I can only
ask). Putting the URL to the UDRP questionnaire on their pages would give it
great visibility.  Does anyone on this list have contacts at any of the
other
registrars/registries?

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html is
the
URL for those (like me) that manage to misplace it every time they want to
access it.

Katrina Burchell wrote:

> Dear task force colleagues
>
> although I am on the task force to represent the complainant, I tried to
> think of some ways in which we can publicise the questionnaire to others
> who might have a different point of view.  I think that many complainants
> and their representatives will complete the questionnaire and since there
> are more organised groups in the field of trade marks it is relatively
> simple to get the message out.  However that will mean that the answers we
> receive are biased and not representing other interests.
>
> these are some ideas I came up with - does anyone have any contacts where
> we can try and get in touch with the right people?
>
> the press - either the general press or the internet or IT specialist
press
> search engines - can we get the questionnaire on some search engines or
> banners?
> CENTR - I came across this organisation via my .eu involvement but can't
> recall the lady's name I met there - I have forwarded the link onto the
> dot eu discussion site anyway.
> ISPA - can they help?
>
> Nominet (the UK NIC) are helping me get in touch with a couple of UK based
> organisations which have contacts with consumers associations and other
> interested parties because they have experience of trying to poll opinion
> when they introduced their new dispute resolution policy.
>
> Interestingly, the first decision under this new procedure has been issued
> and is on their site at
> http://www.nic.uk/drs/decisions/lilly-v-clayton.html  .  It goes in favour
> of the trade mark owner (so some of you may be annoyed!) but the facts
> really speak for themselves and the respondent didn't submit any evidence.
>
> regards
> Katrina
>
> Trade Mark Counsel
> Unilever
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Chicoine, Caroline G. [SMTP:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
> Sent:   15 November 2001 17:11
> To:     'council@dnso.org'
> Cc:     'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
> Subject:        FW: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
>
> We have received a request to see if the registrars and/or registries
would
> be willing to include a link or reference to the UDRP Review questionnaire
> on their websites.  I am simply passing this on to the council and in
> particulr the Registry and Registrar constituencies to the extent they can
> help us.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jse@adamspat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:27 PM
> To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.; nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
>
> I am not so sure that the providers could provide the URL through some
> automatic mechanism for fear of running afoul of spam provisions and
> privacy
> provisions that differ from country to country.  That being said, I think
> groups like ICANNWATCH.ORG and ICANNBLOG.ORG could get the message out to
> some interested parties.  I also think that the providers could post a
> message and the URL on their home pages.  Lastly, we might ask the
> registrars and registries to assist us by positing the URL on their sites
> and sending the URL to parties who receive their electronic updates.
>
> Those are about all the suggestions I have.  If anyone is connected to the
> press, give them a call.
>
> J. Scott
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <john@johnberryhill.com>
> To: <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
>
> >
> > While trademark owners can be reached through organizations such as INTA
> and
> > so forth, there are no corresponding organizations of domain name
> registrants
> > or UDRP respondents (not all of whom, of course, are non-trademark
> owners).
> >
> > I am wondering, since the UDRP providers have email addresses for all of
> the
> > UDRP respondents, whether it would be possible to send respondents
notice
> of
> > the survey, in much the same way that attorneys who have ever filed a
> UDRP
> > complaint (myself included) receive various "updates", informative
> notices,
> > and even color brochures, from the UDRP providers.  I gather that
similar
> > mass mailings are not sent to respondents, but see no reason why
> respondents
> > cannot be informed of the survey in this manner.
> >
> > That would certainly be an easy thing to include in notifications
> relating
> to
> > disputes presently pending, or for which notice of commencement or of
> > decision is to be sent to respondents within the near future.  Sort of
an
> "if
> > you've enjoyed being confused by people you've never heard of, being put
> off
> > by a string of lawyers who had no idea what you were talking about
before
> you
> > eventually found one who did, scheduling time to consult with that
lawyer
> who
> > *might* return your phone calls, trying to gather evidence refuting a
> common
> > law trademark claim, justifying your existence, explaining you are not a
> > thief, and jumping through all our procedural hoops on 20 days notice,
> then
> > let us know at [URL]".  Although I'm sure that others could word the
> > notification more diplomatically than I would.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
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