<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89
Again, I believe this will likely happen once we review the responses. Yes,
we were all chosen for our expertise, but we were also chosen to assist in
the bottoms up consensus process which reaches farther than our small group.
The public needs to be involved in the process and based on their responses
with the addition of our expertise, I am confident we will have a report to
be proud of.
-----Original Message-----
From: MSD@tzmm.com [mailto:MSD@tzmm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 4:01 PM
To: Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us; jse@adamspat.com; froomkin@law.miami.edu
Cc: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; carmody@lawyer.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89
My comments were not intended to be ad hominem. However, I must
confess my frustrations. We all were selected because of some special
knowledge or expertise. Other than mass commentary on the questionnaire
format, we have had little opportunity to sharee that knowledge or
expertise, or to learn from one another in this process. I believe that
this process needs some structure. In the interests of time, I propose that
we establish the following subcommittees to come up with recommendations on
specific areas that can then be sent to the committee as a whole to
determine specific final recommendations which would be submitted to the
DNSO:
1. Selection of Panelists to include methods by which the
panelists are selected and whether all panels should consist of three
members.
2. Pleadings to include possibility of amendments, recognition
of affirmative defenses, possibility of withdrawal of complaint and under
what conditions, and whether and under what conditions pleadings
should be made public.
3. Supplemental Rules to include suggested changes and possible
uniformity.
4. Effect of UDRP Panel decisions to include precedential value
on subsequent panel decisions and ability to refile case.
5. Appeal to include if recommended, what format, and how
funded.
6. Panel disqualification to include individual panelists if
represent parties in domain name proceedings under UDRP, or same if in
court, or if panelist's law firm represents parties in domain
name proceedings under UDRP, or same if in court.
7. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking to include adequately dealt
with or does it require change
8. Any Changes Re Proof Issues to include identical or
confusing similarity, bad faith registration and/or use, effect of pending
trademark application.
We could each list our three top choices in order of preference and
assignments would be made with the order of preference in mind. I hereby
volunteer to facilitate this process, by receiving indviduals' preferences
or however I can assist in making this work.
I welcome any suggestions for additions or modifications to the
above list.
Best regards.
M. Scott Donahey
Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli & Maser LLP
200 Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: (650) 325-8666
Fax: (650) 324-1808
msd@tzmm.com
www.tzmm.com
"This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message."
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 1:29 PM
To: jse@adamspat.com; froomkin@law.miami.edu
Cc: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; carmody@lawyer.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89
J. Scott, I completely agree with you that you have to be involved in order
to assist in crafting the report. However, to side with Michael on this
one, speaking for the gTLDs, we submitted a number of comments regarding the
restructuring TF drafts. All of the comments were summarily dismissed by
the chair without any discussion by the TF on the merits of the proposal and
were not included in any way in the chair's report. In addition, the gTLD
comments for the .org TF were grouped in with all of the Miscellaneous
Reports, which was fine, but for some reason, the chair of the NC decided to
include the comments made by the Business Constituency as its own "Minority
Report" which preceded all of the other reports.
That being said, I have the utmost confidence that whoever takes over the
chair position in this TF will be open to all ideas and ensure a transparent
process and will encourage open participation.
Now, lets get down to business. I have some summaries that are due :)
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jse@adamspat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:09 PM
To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Cc: Chicoine, Caroline G.; carmody@lawyer.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89
Importance: High
Well, we are going to have to elect new chairs prior to any drafting. Under
NC procedures, only NC members can chair a TF. After the recent elections,
Caroline and Milton are no longer NC members. However, by motion, their
Chairmanships were extended until such time as all the survey responses have
been distributed to TF members. At that time, the TF will have to find new
Chairs.
Seeing as how your comments are now on the table, I would hope that any new
Chairs would be sensitive to your concerns. In addition, I would also like
to make sure that others on the TF make note that in order to have your
viewpoint considered, you must participate in the debate. It is too often
the case in volunteer organizations (and in ICANN especially) that some
group/person does not actively participate and then is openly critical of
the process and the work product at the end of the day. YOU MUST BE
INVOLVED IN ORDER TO ASSIST IN CRAFTING THE REPORT.
That is my experience with volunteer organizations and ICANN speaking. And,
Michael, I am sorry that your past experience has been so negative. I
certainly hope that this TF will prove different for you.
J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>
Cc: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>;
<carmody@lawyer.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89
> As long as we're going to have our discussion before the chair starts
> drafting, that's great. Given the history of how chairs have used their
> drafting powers in certain other ICANN TF's, however, I do not in any way
> see how a person could call this an over-reaction. Erroneous conclusion
> on my part, I surely hope so; a reasonable fear, undoubtedly.
>
> Ps. I'm just a lawyer, not a "Dr."!
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>
> > Dear All:
> >
> > I think that everyone is seriously overreacting. Caroline's email in no
way
> > indicates that there will be no robust debate or inclusion of the
various
> > viewpoints regarding the need for reform to the UDRP. It is exactly
this
> > kind of overreaction that leads TF leaders to feel "attacked" over
innocent
> > comments. I, for one, think the survey responses are interesting, but
not
> > dispositive. In addition, I am well aware of Dr. Froomkin's concerns
about
> > the UDRP since its very inception and have read a great majority of his
> > rather prolific works on this subject (although I must confess I have
not
> > yet read the his latest). I have no problem (and always assumed) that
we
> > would all have an opportunity to discuss these viewpoints before
forwarding
> > our paper to the NC.
> >
> > Please let's not overreact. If we feel that there areas that require
> > further consideration or debate so be it. Let's suggest a format for
doing
> > so (such as a suggested schedule/timetable for considering and debating
the
> > various papers that have been put forward). Let's have action and
> > pragmatism, rather than assuming that the process is designed to shut
> > someone or some viewpoint out.
> >
> > That being said, I may have misinterpreted the tone of Scott's and
Michael's
> > earlier messages. However, that should only highlight the danger of
email
> > as a primary mode of communication. Far too often email communication
is
> > either too caustic in tone or has the ability to be misinterpreted as
> > caustic when that is not the intent. Let us all beware. I hope that I
have
> > not offended either Scott or Michael. That is not my intent. Their
points
> > are valid and should be explored. My only criticism is that their
messages
> > both seemed to assume the worst and that is not, IMHO, a positive way to
> > approach these issues.
> >
> > J. Scott Evans
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
<froomkin@law.miami.edu>
> > To: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
> > Cc: <carmody@lawyer.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Wait a minute. While the surveys are informative, they are hardly
> > > dispositive. As we originally agreed, we accepted the unscientific
nature
> > > of them because we were always going to use our independent judgement.
> > >
> > > I and other have forwarded papers to the group that raise very serious
> > > issues in need of reform. When are we going to discuss those?
> > >
> > > PS. In case you missed it, here's a link to mine again:
> > > http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf
> > >
> > > While it's important to know what the respondents to the survey think,
> > > survey collation is hardly the extent of the knowledge and experience
the
> > > members of this group bring to the table.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh, Jim you are not off the hook yet!!!!! We still have to review
the
> > > > responses received from the ICANN website (which I have not yet
received
> > > > from ICANN) and then the Chairs will try to accumulate everyone's
> > summaries
> > > > and prepare a draft report, but we will want everyone's input on the
> > draft
> > > > before we final it and send it to NC.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: James Carmody [mailto:carmodyjim@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 5:13 PM
> > > > To: cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Summary of Responses 82-89
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Attached. I have really enjoyed working with all of
> > > > you and will enjoy reading the final report.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes from Houston,
> > > > Jim Carmody
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > James A. Carmody, nn5o, carmody@lawyer.com
> > > > Voice Mail: 713 446 4234; eFax: 815 461 5321
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
> > > > http://sports.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > > A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
> > > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > > +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> > > -->It's warm here.<--
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> -->It's warm here.<--
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|