Re: [nc-udrp] Moving Forward
J. Scott -
I may be
wrong but it seems to me that there is no possible way for any kind of
draft report to be prepared for the Rio meeting next month. At the rate
we are going, there is no reason to suspect that anything will happen by
the June Montreal meeting or even, I suspect, by the December 2004
meeting that ICANN has announced that it plans to hold somewhere in
Africa. I obviously have no official standing to do so but if no report
is ready in time for the Montreal meeting, I will probably submit my own.
I have no idea at this moment what it will say other than that some
elements are working satisfactorily and others need improvement or
change. If any task force members wish to collaborate with me on this,
please let me know. I would welcome it.
force has been in existence for so long that I find it difficult to
accept any excuse for the ongoing level of inactivity or productivity. As
with most institutions and communities, there are groups that benefit
from the status quo and are, therefore, quite satisfied when nothing
changes. I can understand that managing this task force so that it never
does anything substantive may be welcomed in some circles. ICANN's
Fifth Status Report Under ICANN/US Government
Memorandum of Understanding, however, submitted January 8,
2003, stated that "The DNSO (now GNSO) UDRP
Task Force was formed in September 2001 and has been engaged
in a broad range of activities to evaluate the UDRP since then. Its
activities include conducting a survey and reviewing various third-part
analyses of the UDRPís operation." I don't think that the survey,
completed a year ago and of questionable value, or the summaries of
some existing studies, really qualify as "a broad range of
activities to evaluate the UDRP." What would have been more truthful
would have been to state that the task force is not much closer to
completing an evaluation than it was a year ago or even a year and a half
ago. In an early email circulated to the task force on Septemebr 20,
2001, Peter Philliips asked, "Has a procedure for considering
proposals been devised and agreed upon?'" This question has been
unanswered for a year and a half and I am sure that I am not alone in
finding all of this to be a great embarrassment. I think a report should
be given to the Board in Rio but, frankly, it should be a report that
states that they shouldn't hold their breath waiting for the evaluation
they asked for a year and a half ago.
Professor and Director
Center for Information Technology
and Dispute Resolution
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
At 08:28 AM 1/13/2003 -0500, J. Scott Evans wrote:
THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE IS AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION WHICH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. SHOULD YOU RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE CONTACT J. SCOTT EVANS AT ADAMS, SCHWARTZ & EVANS, P.A. BY CALLING (704) 375-9249 OR BY E-MAIL AT email@example.com. PLEASE ALSO REMOVE ALL ELECTRONIC COPIES OF THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM AND DESTROY ALL HARD COPIES. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I have now received the completed summaries from everyone but Ethan and Dan (they had a difficult set to conquer). I spoke with Caroline on Thursday and she had not yet received all the completed reviews of the surveys and needed the weekend to review the materials. I extended her deadline until COB today CST. I hope everyone will take the time to review the article/study summaries they have received and the survey summaries when they are circulated. It is my hope for us to begin discussions on-line by no later than Friday of this week. I will circulate an agenda laying out the timetable for discussions. We will take one topic at a time a move through the topics set out in the terms of reference. I would also like to have a conference call towards the end of January. It is my hope that we will begin drafting a draft report no later than February 10.
I hope everyone is having a safe and happy 2003.
I look forward to hearing from Caroline, Dan and Ethan in the near future.
In the meantime, I would like to welcome David Maher to our group. David will be representing the registries in this process. I also need to hear from Erik Wilburs. I have attempted to contact Erik several times and have yet to catch up with him. Erik, if you read this message, please contact me.
Thanks to everyone for their continued dedication.
J. Scott Evans