<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89
{\rtf1\ansi\deff0{\fonttbl {\f0\fmodern\fcharset0 Courier New;}{\f1\fswiss\fprq2 Arial;}}
{\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue255;}
\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\ulnone\f0\fs20 Hi everyone\par
\par
I have a few comments to add to the various debates that started as a result of Jim's response.\par
\par
I think it is important that we do not lose the momentum of using the information (albeit that some of it is not that helpful) that the survey responses generated. Personally I found the various comments interesting if a little biased and in some cases completely irrelevant but as a picture I think we are beginning to see that generally UDRP works well and is liked but that there are some areas which need refining. We can as a task force pull all these together and work on that.\par
\par
We all accepted (I think - or at least I did!) that the results of survey were only going to be a guideline and that it was unlikely that there would be a representative sample of respondents. I was relieved to see that at least it wasnt all trade mark owners that replied.\par
\par
I am all for structure (in fact Ive been called a control freak in the past) but Im not too keen on the idea of sub committees simply because in my limited experience of task forces on internet matters everyone wants to have their say about everything and even if one topic is delegated to a small number of us it will have to be later discussed again in detail by the whole group. I can feel myself already becoming guilty of this since I couldnt easily chose 3 of M Scott's list - I want to have a say on them all! How about if we take M Scott Donahey's list of topics which seems a good list to me and make one person responsible per topic for compiling and documenting the results of the debate into a word document which can then form an annex to a report?\par
\par
I think Milton and Caroline have done a fantastic job in difficult circumstances and I dont envy them pulling the results of the survey responses together into something coherent that we all agree on but Im looking forward to seeing and commenting on that document when it is ready. \par
\par
We need to take care that for any period of time that we are without a chair we do not let the good work that we have already done lose momentum.\par
\par
regards\par
Katrina\par
\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 06 March 2002 23:03\par
\b To:\tab\b0 MSD@tzmm.com; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us; froomkin@law.miami.edu\par
\b Cc:\tab\b0 CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; carmody@lawyer.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org\par
\b Subject:\tab\b0 Re: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89\par
\protect0\pard\protect\li360\f0\fs20\par
Scott:\par
\par
I certainly have no problem with serving on a subcommittee. However, both\par
of your messages seem to imply the foregone conclusion that the UDRP needs\par
to be revised. I thought that was the purpose of the survey -- to see what\par
the broader community viewed as shortcomings in the UDRP. I also thought we\par
were going to review and consider the papers by various parties that have\par
reviewed and analyzed the UDRP to determine if any of those positions held\par
merit and, if so, how we could revise the UDRP to overcome the identified\par
deficiencies. I realize that everyone was put on the TF because of their\par
perceived expertise, however, in ICANN it is the stakeholder community at\par
large, not individual experts that drive change. For this reason, I think\par
it is a mistake to assume the UDRP requires change and to assume the\par
credentials of the TF members mean that our only task is to craft the\par
necessary revisions to incorporate/accommodate such changes. I think the\par
basic premise for this TF is to determine if the stakeholder community\par
believes the UDRP needs revision. If the answer to that questions is "yes,"\par
then the next question is where and what suggestions does the community\par
offer for how. Lastly, the inquiry is in those identified areas where there\par
seems to be consensus that revision is required, what form should that\par
revision have and, of the suggested remedies/revisions, which are most\par
appropriate.\par
\par
J. Scott\par
----- Original Message -----\par
From: <MSD@tzmm.com>\par
To: <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; <jse@adamspat.com>; <froomkin@law.miami.edu>\par
Cc: <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>; <carmody@lawyer.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>\par
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 5:00 PM\par
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89\par
\par
\par
My comments were not intended to be ad hominem. However, I must\par
confess my frustrations. We all were selected because of some special\par
knowledge or expertise. Other than mass commentary on the questionnaire\par
format, we have had little opportunity to sharee that knowledge or\par
expertise, or to learn from one another in this process. I believe that\par
this process needs some structure. In the interests of time, I propose that\par
we establish the following subcommittees to come up with recommendations on\par
specific areas that can then be sent to the committee as a whole to\par
determine specific final recommendations which would be submitted to the\par
DNSO:\par
\par
1. Selection of Panelists to include methods by which the\par
panelists are selected and whether all panels should consist of three\par
members.\par
2. Pleadings to include possibility of amendments, recognition\par
of affirmative defenses, possibility of withdrawal of complaint and under\par
what conditions, and whether and under what conditions pleadings\par
should be made public.\par
3. Supplemental Rules to include suggested changes and possible\par
uniformity.\par
4. Effect of UDRP Panel decisions to include precedential value\par
on subsequent panel decisions and ability to refile case.\par
5. Appeal to include if recommended, what format, and how\par
funded.\par
6. Panel disqualification to include individual panelists if\par
represent parties in domain name proceedings under UDRP, or same if in\par
court, or if panelist's law firm represents parties in domain\par
name proceedings under UDRP, or same if in court.\par
7. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking to include adequately dealt\par
with or does it require change\par
8. Any Changes Re Proof Issues to include identical or\par
confusing similarity, bad faith registration and/or use, effect of pending\par
trademark application.\par
\par
We could each list our three top choices in order of preference and\par
assignments would be made with the order of preference in mind. I hereby\par
volunteer to facilitate this process, by receiving indviduals' preferences\par
or however I can assist in making this work.\par
I welcome any suggestions for additions or modifications to the\par
above list.\par
\par
Best regards.\par
\par
M. Scott Donahey\par
Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli & Maser LLP\par
200 Page Mill Rd.\par
Palo Alto, CA 94306\par
Phone: (650) 325-8666\par
Fax: (650) 324-1808\par
msd@tzmm.com\par
www.tzmm.com\par
\par
"This email message is for the sole use of the intended\par
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any\par
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you\par
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and\par
destroy all copies of the original message."\par
\par
\par
\par
-----Original Message-----\par
From: Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us [\cf1\ul mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us\cf0\ulnone ]\par
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 1:29 PM\par
To: jse@adamspat.com; froomkin@law.miami.edu\par
Cc: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; carmody@lawyer.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org\par
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89\par
\par
\par
J. Scott, I completely agree with you that you have to be involved in order\par
to assist in crafting the report. However, to side with Michael on this\par
one, speaking for the gTLDs, we submitted a number of comments regarding the\par
restructuring TF drafts. All of the comments were summarily dismissed by\par
the chair without any discussion by the TF on the merits of the proposal and\par
were not included in any way in the chair's report. In addition, the gTLD\par
comments for the .org TF were grouped in with all of the Miscellaneous\par
Reports, which was fine, but for some reason, the chair of the NC decided to\par
include the comments made by the Business Constituency as its own "Minority\par
Report" which preceded all of the other reports.\par
\par
That being said, I have the utmost confidence that whoever takes over the\par
chair position in this TF will be open to all ideas and ensure a transparent\par
process and will encourage open participation.\par
\par
Now, lets get down to business. I have some summaries that are due :)\par
\par
-----Original Message-----\par
From: J. Scott Evans [\cf1\ul mailto:jse@adamspat.com\cf0\ulnone ]\par
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:09 PM\par
To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law\par
Cc: Chicoine, Caroline G.; carmody@lawyer.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org\par
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89\par
Importance: High\par
\par
\par
Well, we are going to have to elect new chairs prior to any drafting. Under\par
NC procedures, only NC members can chair a TF. After the recent elections,\par
Caroline and Milton are no longer NC members. However, by motion, their\par
Chairmanships were extended until such time as all the survey responses have\par
been distributed to TF members. At that time, the TF will have to find new\par
Chairs.\par
\par
Seeing as how your comments are now on the table, I would hope that any new\par
Chairs would be sensitive to your concerns. In addition, I would also like\par
to make sure that others on the TF make note that in order to have your\par
viewpoint considered, you must participate in the debate. It is too often\par
the case in volunteer organizations (and in ICANN especially) that some\par
group/person does not actively participate and then is openly critical of\par
the process and the work product at the end of the day. YOU MUST BE\par
INVOLVED IN ORDER TO ASSIST IN CRAFTING THE REPORT.\par
\par
That is my experience with volunteer organizations and ICANN speaking. And,\par
Michael, I am sorry that your past experience has been so negative. I\par
certainly hope that this TF will prove different for you.\par
\par
J. Scott\par
----- Original Message -----\par
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>\par
To: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>\par
Cc: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>;\par
<carmody@lawyer.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>\par
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:57 PM\par
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89\par
\par
\par
> As long as we're going to have our discussion before the chair starts\par
> drafting, that's great. Given the history of how chairs have used their\par
> drafting powers in certain other ICANN TF's, however, I do not in any way\par
> see how a person could call this an over-reaction. Erroneous conclusion\par
> on my part, I surely hope so; a reasonable fear, undoubtedly.\par
>\par
> Ps. I'm just a lawyer, not a "Dr."!\par
>\par
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, J. Scott Evans wrote:\par
>\par
> > Dear All:\par
> >\par
> > I think that everyone is seriously overreacting. Caroline's email in no\par
way\par
> > indicates that there will be no robust debate or inclusion of the\par
various\par
> > viewpoints regarding the need for reform to the UDRP. It is exactly\par
this\par
> > kind of overreaction that leads TF leaders to feel "attacked" over\par
innocent\par
> > comments. I, for one, think the survey responses are interesting, but\par
not\par
> > dispositive. In addition, I am well aware of Dr. Froomkin's concerns\par
about\par
> > the UDRP since its very inception and have read a great majority of his\par
> > rather prolific works on this subject (although I must confess I have\par
not\par
> > yet read the his latest). I have no problem (and always assumed) that\par
we\par
> > would all have an opportunity to discuss these viewpoints before\par
forwarding\par
> > our paper to the NC.\par
> >\par
> > Please let's not overreact. If we feel that there areas that require\par
> > further consideration or debate so be it. Let's suggest a format for\par
doing\par
> > so (such as a suggested schedule/timetable for considering and debating\par
the\par
> > various papers that have been put forward). Let's have action and\par
> > pragmatism, rather than assuming that the process is designed to shut\par
> > someone or some viewpoint out.\par
> >\par
> > That being said, I may have misinterpreted the tone of Scott's and\par
Michael's\par
> > earlier messages. However, that should only highlight the danger of\par
email\par
> > as a primary mode of communication. Far too often email communication\par
is\par
> > either too caustic in tone or has the ability to be misinterpreted as\par
> > caustic when that is not the intent. Let us all beware. I hope that I\par
have\par
> > not offended either Scott or Michael. That is not my intent. Their\par
points\par
> > are valid and should be explored. My only criticism is that their\par
messages\par
> > both seemed to assume the worst and that is not, IMHO, a positive way to\par
> > approach these issues.\par
> >\par
> > J. Scott Evans\par
> > ----- Original Message -----\par
> > From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"\par
<froomkin@law.miami.edu>\par
> > To: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>\par
> > Cc: <carmody@lawyer.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>\par
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:18 PM\par
> > Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89\par
> >\par
> >\par
> > >\par
> > > Wait a minute. While the surveys are informative, they are hardly\par
> > > dispositive. As we originally agreed, we accepted the unscientific\par
nature\par
> > > of them because we were always going to use our independent judgement.\par
> > >\par
> > > I and other have forwarded papers to the group that raise very serious\par
> > > issues in need of reform. When are we going to discuss those?\par
> > >\par
> > > PS. In case you missed it, here's a link to mine again:\par
> > > \cf1\ul http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf\cf0\ulnone\par
> > >\par
> > > While it's important to know what the respondents to the survey think,\par
> > > survey collation is hardly the extent of the knowledge and experience\par
the\par
> > > members of this group bring to the table.\par
> > >\par
> > >\par
> > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote:\par
> > >\par
> > > > Oh, Jim you are not off the hook yet!!!!! We still have to review\par
the\par
> > > > responses received from the ICANN website (which I have not yet\par
received\par
> > > > from ICANN) and then the Chairs will try to accumulate everyone's\par
> > summaries\par
> > > > and prepare a draft report, but we will want everyone's input on the\par
> > draft\par
> > > > before we final it and send it to NC.\par
> > > >\par
> > > > -----Original Message-----\par
> > > > From: James Carmody [\cf1\ul mailto:carmodyjim@yahoo.com\cf0\ulnone ]\par
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 5:13 PM\par
> > > > To: cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org\par
> > > > Subject: Summary of Responses 82-89\par
> > > >\par
> > > >\par
> > > > Attached. I have really enjoyed working with all of\par
> > > > you and will enjoy reading the final report.\par
> > > >\par
> > > > Best wishes from Houston,\par
> > > > Jim Carmody\par
> > > >\par
> > > > =====\par
> > > > James A. Carmody, nn5o, carmody@lawyer.com\par
> > > > Voice Mail: 713 446 4234; eFax: 815 461 5321\par
> > > >\par
> > > > __________________________________________________\par
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?\par
> > > > Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball\par
> > > > \cf1\ul http://sports.yahoo.com\cf0\ulnone\par
> > > >\par
> > >\par
> > > --\par
> > > Please visit \cf1\ul http://www.icannwatch.org\cf0\ulnone\par
> > > A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm\par
> > > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA\par
> > > +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | \cf1\ul http://www.law.tm\cf0\ulnone\par
> > > -->It's warm here.<--\par
> > >\par
> > >\par
> >\par
> >\par
>\par
> --\par
> Please visit \cf1\ul http://www.icannwatch.org\cf0\ulnone\par
> A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm\par
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA\par
> +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | \cf1\ul http://www.law.tm\cf0\ulnone\par
> -->It's warm here.<--\par
>\par
>\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
}
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|