ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-udrp]


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

[nc-udrp] Resurrection of UDRP Task Force


Dear Sir:
 
I must sincerely apologize that you were left off the distribution list for the UDRP TF until Glen, the DNSO Secretariat, and Caroline Chicoine, former TF Chair, reminded me of your participation.  I obtained my list of representatives from the Task Force Archives, your name and e-mail contact details were not listed on the document I reviewed.  I hope you will accept my apologies for this oversight.  To get you up to speed, I have included the only substantive e-mail I have distributed in the last week or so.  If you are still interested in participating and can make the call, please join us.  If you are unable to make the call, please let me know whether you are still interested in participating in our work.
 
In addition, a conference call was held on November 19, 2002 at 15:00 UTC.  On this call, we discussed no issues of substance because it was decided that the timeline set forth in the message copied below is perhaps too aggressive given the amount of work that lays before the group.  Accordingly, it was decided that the TF will have its second conference call on Wednesday, Dec. 4th at 15:00 UTC.  In the Interim,
 
Your continued participation would be greatly appreciate by myself, the Names Council and the rest of the Task Force.  If you are still willing and able to assist us in this endeavor, please contact me by return message so that I can ensure you are copied in on all the necessary correspondence and receive call-in information for all the necessary conference calls.  During our next call, it is my hope that we develop a concrete action plan for developing our report for submission to the Names Council.
 
Kind regards.
 
J. Scott Evans
ADAMS, SCHWARTZ & EVANS, P.A.
jse@adamspat.com
PH:  (704) 375-9249
FX:  (704) 375-0729

ORIGINALLY DISTRIBUTED 8 NOV. 2002

Dear All:

This message shall serve as my first official communication to the Task Force regarding moving this process forward.  I sent out a message earlier requesting a response regarding your continued participation in this Task Force.  From the responses I have received, I believe the following people wish to continue participating on this Task Force:

Caroline Chicoine, Jeff Neuman, Katrina Burchell, M. Scott Donahey, Ethan Katsh, John Berryhill, Mac Waldbaum, Dan Steinberg

The following person cannot continue:

F. Peter Philips - as a CPR provider representative

I have not heard from the following people (or if I have their response was erased during a computer glitch on my end):

Sarah Deutsch, Neil Dundas, Antonio Harris, Michael Palage, Dr. Joelle Thibault; Tim Cole, Erik Wilbers, Joon Hyung Hong and Graeme Dinwoodie.

If any of the above are still interested, please send me an e-mail to confirm your continued participation before November 13, 2002.

In addition, I note that Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre does not have a representative or panelist representative on this Task Force and I would like to offer an invitation to this organization to place a provider and panelist representative on the Task Force.  I think it would be valuable to have an Asian provider's perspective on the issues considered by this group.

Given that this Task Force finds itself caught between the old ICANN policy development process and the new PDP which is attached as Appendix 1 to the new ICANN by-laws adopted in Shanghai, I propose that we continue this Task Force on a hybrid basis.

My first proposal is that the Task Force aim to have a preliminary report consisting of an analysis of the survey results and the various papers which have been submitted to the Task Force by December 15, 2002.  Once this preliminary report is complete, I propose that we then take up the schedule set out in the new PDP with just minor modifications.  I have listed this proposed schedule below and I have highlighted the changes below:

d. Collection of Information.

1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after presentation of the preliminary report. Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following:

(i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue;

(ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members;

(iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views;

(iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and

(v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy.

e. Task Force Report. The task force, working with the Task Force chair, shall compile the Constituency Statements, preliminary report, and other information or reports, as applicable, into a single document ("Draft Task Force Report") and distribute the Draft Task Force Report to the full Names Counsel no later than the spring ICANN meeting. The task force shall have a final task force meeting within ten (10) days after the date of distribution of the Draft Task Force Report to deliberate the issues and try and reach a Supermajority Vote. Within five (5) calendar days after the final task force meeting, the task force shall create the final task force report (the "Task Force Report") and post it on the Comment Site. Each Task Force Report must include:

1. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote position of the task force on the issue;

2. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by task force members submitted within the twenty-day timeline for submission of constituency reports. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying the position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position;

3. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency of the task force, including any financial impact on the constituency;

4. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy; and

5. The advice of any outside advisors appointed to the task force by the Council, accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisors' (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest.


As many of you know the terms of reference for this Task Force are established.  I have listed below those issues that we must tackle during the next very chaotic months:

                ∑         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 Providerís supplemental rules

         ability to amend complaint

Task Force reviews results of questionnaire, as well as any third party studies directed to the UDRP including without limitation the Syracuse University study, the Max Plank Institute study and the Rose Communication study.  Based on the results of the questionnaire and those studies, the Task Force shall prepare a Report summarizing the areas identified as needing reform and the recommendations to implement such reform. 


While it has been suggested by Jeff Neuman that the survey results and/or the terms of reference are no longer timely, I disagree.  I believe the issues set out above still remain very relevant.  In addition, I think the survey results are a good snap shot of the community response to the UDRP and I think it is important that they are considered by this group.

I would like to have a conference call for this group on November 20th if at all possible.  To this end, I would ask that everyone let me know what time U.S. Eastern Standard time is most convenient for such a call.  We need to begin organizing and dividing up the work so that we can have ourselves a preliminary report for December 15, 2002.

I would also ask that each of you review my suggested strategy for moving forward and let me know if you have any major objections/suggestions for me.

I look forward to hearing from each of you very soon.

Kind regards.

J. Scott Evans
ADAMS, SCHWARTZ & EVANS, P.A.
jse@adamspat.com
PH:  (704) 375-9249
FX:  (704) 375-0729



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