<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control
jscott, hi and i am still ready and willing to work on the task force but lets create a little more thunder. i know the past dalliances are all to be laid at the door of icann by not getting back to us and the pain of getting new leaders.so, put it all behind and i would certainly like to see final survey results which are not irrelevant but certainly need updating. mac
>>> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> 10/09/02 15:57 PM >>>
I guess my point was that this data is over a year old. In addition, it
completely disregards the fact that there were other dispute processes that
attempted to correct some of the perceived problems. Whether they did is a
another question, but certainly they should be considered prior to the Task
Force making any recommendations.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:46 PM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'jse@adamspat.com'; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
School of Law; John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
Cc: nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control
Having reviewed the responses to the survey, I would not agree that the data
is out of date as there were some useful criticisms and suggestions that
continue to have applicability.
-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 5:15 PM
To: 'jse@adamspat.com'; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; John
Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
Cc: nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control
With all due respect J. Scott, I think we need to go back to the NC for a
new Terms of Reference and scrap most of what has been done. The reality is
that the data we have is now months out of date (The survey started in
November last year and the deadline was February 1st - 8 months ago). Since
the survey was released, seven new TLDs have been launched and each have had
their dispute processes extensively used. For example, there have been
several hundred STOP proceedings under .biz, and many new proceedings under
.info's new procedures. Most of the discussion on this list has focused on
decisions that have come out since the survey. In addition, it may be
helpful to the new TLD process to get input on the new dispute processes.
I am still interested in helping out, but I believe that the terms of
reference are out of date as well. From what I can tell, the Terms of
Reference state
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00024.html):
"The interim committee shall constitute a Task Force to create a
questionnaire to solicit public comment through a bottom up,
consensus-building DNSO process regarding various aspects of the existing
UDRP. The Task Force shall work on the basis of consensus and not majority
vote. However, to the extent no consensus can be reasonably reached on an
item, majority vote shall rule with all dissenting views being made of
record."
The questionnaire shall be created with an eye toward identifying potential
areas for reform, including without limitation:
- forum shopping
- publication of complaints and answers
- appeals
- reverse domain name hijacking
- quality of decisions
- speed of decisions
- precedential affect of decisions within and outside of UDRP
- costs
- continuity of decisions among and within panels
- res judicata effect of decisions within and outside the UDRP
- requirements for bad faith (i.e., domain name registration and/or
use)
- fairness of Provider's supplemental rules
- ability to amend complaint
These are just my thoughts.
-----Original Message-----
From: jse@adamspat.com [mailto:jse@adamspat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:42 PM
To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
Cc: nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control
Importance: High
Dear All:
I believe that the criterion for arbitrators is set by each individual
provider.
With regard to this inactive list, I have been appointed as the Chair of
this Task Force as many of you are aware. I have spent the last several
weeks reviewing the numerous (over 500) emails in my UDRP mail box. The
first task is to determine who of the original Task Force members is still
willing to participate in this process. The next task will be to look at
the Terms of Reference document and compare that to the survey results.
Please understand that the Survey is NOT intended to control the outcome of
our recommendations in the areas identified in the terms of reference.
So, if the recipient's of this message will respond by no later than Oct. 12
and let us know who is willing to move forward with this Task Force. It is
my hope to have an interim report/progress report ready by the NC meeting in
November 2002. I look forward to hearing from each of you and I am hopeful
that you all will participate. I believe the Task Force is populated with
many differing views and many good minds. Together I feel confident that we
can provide the NC and, ultimately, the Board with a solid recommendation on
the UDRP.
I look forward to hearing from each of you very soon.
Kind regards.
J. Scott Evans
ADAMS, SCHWARTZ & EVANS, P.A.
jse@adamspat.com
704-375-9249
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>
Cc: <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control
> I can tell you that whatever the criteria are, WIPO appears to believe I
> do not meet them, as they rejected my application....
>
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
>
> >
> > Nobody seems to know the answers to the questions I had asked earlier
about
> > what are the criteria for accrediting panelists, or what training
materials
> > are provided to panelists, which is somewhat odd considering that UDRP
> > panelists are on this busy task force. The following case is an
interesting
> > study in what happens when panelists do not actually read the policies
under
> > which they are making decisions.
> >
> > http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00270.html
> >
> > This is a .biz STOP decision. The .biz STOP policy requires the domain
name
> > to be identical to the complainant's mark (the "confusingly similar"
language
> > was not included in .biz STOP).
> >
> > The domain name is "newzealand.biz", and concerning the trademark claim,
the
> > panelist unequivocally finds:
> >
> > "To summarize its determination in this proceeding, the Panel rejects
> > Complainant's claim to trademark and service mark rights in 'NEW
ZEALAND'."
> >
> > And then the panelist orders transfer of the domain name.
> >
> > The reason for the transfer was the panelist's understanding of the
rules for
> > determining whether further challenges of multiple claimants would be
> > permitted after a transfer has been ordered. That rule, which is based
on
> > whether the complainant has legitimate rights of any kind, was used by
this
> > panelist to write the trademark requirement completely out of the
policy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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 very hot here.<--
>
>
_________________________________________________________
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone (212-632-5500)
and delete and destroy all copies of the material, including all
copies stored in the recipient's computer, printed or saved to disk.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|