RE: [nc-udrp] Questionnaire

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

I was not aware that ICANN was going to change the format before it posted
it.  I only learned about it once it was posted.  Given how long it took
them to post it, and now that the "cat is out of the bag"  I wonder what
good it would do to redact it at this point.  As we review the responses
(pre-ICANN posting vs post-ICANN posting) we will need to consider what
affect, if any, the changes made to the responses.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:10 AM
To: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
Subject: [nc-udrp] Questionnaire


My apologies for not posting sooner on this subject. I just got a chance
to look at the questionnaire as posted on the ICANN website and I was
quite surprised at the differences.  Starting from question 1, I could
not help notice that these differences made for quite a different 'feel'
to the questionnaire, including questions on details that I believe we
discussed and agreed to not collect.  On the ICANN site, in question 1,
the questionnaire asks for number of proceedings, how many domain names
were involved, what providers, win/lose/some of each, how many
panelists, etc. then the same if you were a respondent, the same if you
were a UDRP panelist.

Again, my apologies for not speaking up earlier when this first came up.
But am I the only one that finds this to be a problem?  It seems to be a
significant disconnect.

--
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