[nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON RECEIPT

["James A. Carmody" <carmodyjim@yahoo.com>]

Scott:

I would be happy to help Caroline with
analyzing/organizing the responses.

Jim Carmody
--- "Chicoine, Caroline G."
<CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> wrote:
> J. Scott, I would be happy to work on the survey
> responses since I am
> already familiar with the DNSO ones.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jse@adamspat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:45 AM
> To: UDRP Task Force; Chicoine, Caroline G.; SARAH B.
> DEUTSCH;
> ndundas@africaip.com; jse@adamspat.com;
> harris@cabase.org.ar;
> froomkin@law.miami.edu; Michael Palage; Philip
> Sheppard; msd@tzmm.com;
> katsh@legal.umass.edu; carmody@lawyer.com;
> tcole@arb-forum.com;
> jberryhill@ddhs.com; Mac Waldbaum;
> erik.wilbers@wipo.int;
> sythesis@videotron.ca; joonh@chollian.net;
> gdinwood@kentlaw.edu;
> ramesh@mimos.my; faia@amauta.rep.net.pe
> Cc: DNSO SECRETARIAT
> Subject: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON
> RECEIPT
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Dear All:
>  
> My apologies again for the technical glitch that
> kept you all from receiving
> this message yesterday.  As we agreed on the call
> earlier, please review the
> materials listed in this message and attached
> hereto.  By Wednesday,
> December 11, 2002, everyone should identify the area
> in which they wish to
> concentrate their efforts as we distill this
> information.  Essentially, I
> envision two groups:  1) working on the summarizing
> and identifying issues
> presented in the 11 papers listed below and 2)
> another group working with
> the survey responses.
>  
> Please post all discussion to the list.
>  
> Thank you again for your time and dedication.
>  
> Regards.
>  
> J. Scott
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> A. The most current version of the "UDRP Review and
> Evaluation, Terms
> of Reference" document can be found at
> 
>
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html>
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
> 
> B. DNSO UDRP Questionnaire (includes French and
> Spanish links) -
> 
>
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html>
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html
> 
> C. All responses (155) per question can be found at
>  <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp1.txt>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp1.txt
> Each individual response per questionnaire can be
> found at
>  <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp2.txt>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp2.txt
> 
> D. ICANN UDRP Questionnaire (see attachment below)
> 
> E. Responses to ICANN Questionnaire (see attachment
> below)
> 
> F. Task Force summaries (see attachments below)
> Katrina Burchell (1-9, 56-65)
> J. Scott Evans (25-32)
> Maxim H. Waldbaum (108-115)
> Prof. Dr. Hong (124-131)
> M. Scott Donahey (66-73)
> James A. Carmody (82-89)
> Neil Dundas (9-16)
> Jeffrey J. Neuman (17-24)
> Timothy S. Cole (90-98)
> Graeme Dinwoodie (132-140)
> 
> G. Chicoine "summary of summaries" (see attachment)
> In general, I identified the following POTENTIAL
> areas of reform.
> 
> Procedural Issues
> (1) Make the process of electronic versus paper
> filing of complaint and
> exhibits more clear.
> (2) Improve searchability of decisions
> (3) Difficulty finding Registrar's rules that
> applied at the time the
> Registrant registered the domain name
> (4) Improve accuracy, availability and searchability
> of Whois information
> (5) Improve the effectuation of a
> transfer/cancellation order
> (6) Revisit who should select provider
> (7) Amendment of complaints under certain limited
> circumstances
> (8) Amendment of responses under certain limited
> circumstances
> (9) Transfer of case to another Provider under
> certain limited circumstances
> (10) Uniformity of supplemental rules
> (11) Public accessibility of complaints and answers
> with certain
> limitations/exceptions
> (12) Central availability of UDRP decisions
> (13) No refiling of UDRP involving same domain name
> and same registrant
> except under certain limited circumstances.
> (14) Ability to withdraw complaint, but under
> certain circumstances and with
> certain consequences (with prejudice, fine)
> (15) instituting some sort of penalty for a finding
> of reverse domain name
> hijacking
> (16) impose quality control measures with respect to
> provider and panelists
> (17) allow for partial refund of provider fee
> depending if and when a case
> settles.
> 
> Substantive Issues
> (1) Interpretation of "identical or confusingly
> similar to"
> (2) Whether to include some affirmative defenses
> expressly in the policy
> (3) Mixed view on precedential value of decisions
> (4) Mixed view on ability to appeal (if so, some
> recommendations included
> same provider, but different panelists; different
> provider; appealing party
> pays for appeal, but costs for appellant if
> successful; level of deference
> with respect to findings of fact "abuse of
> discretion and with respect to
> law" or "de novo")
> (5) changing "registration and use" to "registration
> or use" 
> (6) Allow pending trademark applications as a basis
> for establishing rights
> in a mark provided use has occurred
> (7) no expansion of scope of disputes handled under
> UDRP except as set forth
> above
> 
> 
> H. Third party studies/papers.   Caroline could not
> find a link for the Rose
> Communications, S.L. paper so it is attached.
> 
> (1) ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" -
> Causes and
> (Partial) Cures, Prof. A. Michael Froomkin -
> 
>
<http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf>
> http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf
> 
> (2) Max Plank Institute Study -
>  
>
<http://www.intellecprop.mpg.de/Online-Publikationen/2002/UDRP-study-final-0
> 2>
>
http://www.intellecprop.mpg.de/Online-Publikationen/2002/UDRP-study-final-02
> .pdf
> 
> (3) Rough Justice, Prof. Milton Mueller -
>  <http://www.acm.org/usacm/IG/roughjustice.pdf>
> http://www.acm.org/usacm/IG/roughjustice.pdf
> 
> (4) UDRP-A Success Story? A Rebuttal to the Analysis
> and Conclusions
> of Professor Milton Mueller in Rough Justice, N.
> Branthover (INTA) -
> 
>
<http://www.inta.org/downloads/tap_udrp_1paper2002.pdf>
>
http://www.inta.org/downloads/tap_udrp_1paper2002.pdf
> 
> (5) Divergence in the UDRP and the Need for
> Appellate Review, M.
> Scott Donahey - 
> <http://www.udrplaw.net/DonaheyPaper.htm>
> http://www.udrplaw.net/DonaheyPaper.htm
> 
> (6) Designing Non-National Systems: The Case of the
> Uniform Domain
> Name Dispute Resolution Policy, L. Helfer and G.
> Dinwoodie -
> 
=== message truncated ===


=====
James A. Carmody, nn5o, carmody@lawyer.com
http://www.lawyers.com/jacarmodypc
Voice Mail: 713 446 4234; eFax: 815 461 5321
GO TEXANS!!