ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-udrp]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-udrp] Fw: UDRP Survey Analysis Chart


J. Scott, sorry for the delay in responding to your inquiry.  With respect to the ranking question, I would simply footnote that all choices were equally ranked so it at least identifies that there may be a problem with the integrity of the answer.
-----Original Message-----
From: jse@adamspat.com [mailto:jse@adamspat.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:43 AM
To: nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-udrp] Fw: UDRP Survey Analysis Chart
Importance: High

My apologies for all the typos in the message below.  I reread the message this morning and actually laughed out loud.  One should not try to send messages to a group of exceptionally bright colleagues on a Sunday night with the children bickering in the next room.  Oh well, I hope you all can make out the meaning of what must seem like some kind of arcane code. ;-).
 
The best of luck to you.
 
J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:10 PM
Subject: UDRP Survey Analysis Chart

Dear All:
 
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.   Accordingly, Katrina please consider yourself flattered.  I simply took Katrina's format and style of analysis and applied it to my eight questions. ;-).
 
I do have some comments for the group.  First, Milton, Caroline, on a couple of the questions which required the respondent to rank the choice, I received all choice equally ranked as no. 1.  Would this occur if the respondent failed to make any choices?   I only ask the because these two forms were only sparsely completed.  I just wonder about integrity here.
 
Second, I suggest that everyone look to question seven first.  Two my respondents identified themselves as "complainants" and on question seven stated that they were counsel for the complainant in a UDRP action.  So much for clear instructions.
 
My responses were only surprising in that, overall, the respondents all seem to be rather happy with the UDRP as it stands.  There was a uniform call to amend 4(a)(iii) to read "registered or used in bad faith."  I was also surprised that the majority of respondents did not want an appeals process built into the UDRP.  In addition, the majority of respondents felt that a complainant shooed be able to reply to a response or amend a complaint if circumstance warrant such steps.  Equally, all seemed to feel that a respondent should have some leeway to react to chaining circumstances.
 
Overall, I felt the results were positive; however, you can review the chart I prepared and judge for yourselves.
 
Hope all is well.
 
Regards.
 
J. Scott Evans
ADAMS, SCHWARTZ & EVANS, P.A.
jse@adamspat.com
704-375-9249


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>