DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [tor-udrp] UDRP Terms of Reference.DOC

These all sound like good suggestions to me.  If no one has any objections,
I will rework the TOR one more time so we can get it published to the NC so
they have time to have thoughtful consideration before our next call.  I
will have it done by tomorrow and if anyone has any comments or suggestions
thereafter, you can present it at the NC call.

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 3:05 PM
To: tor-udrp@dnso.org; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com
Subject: Re: [tor-udrp] UDRP Terms of Reference.DOC

Thanks for your work. A few final comments and responses to your

I agree with the addition of amended complaints
and procedural fairness issues. Those are real issues.

RE: the survey, if we are avoiding an open WG then I would
welcome the "survey" as an opportunity for ordinary people 
to air issues that we may not have thought of. I would ask that 
it be treated as such and NOT as a scientifically valid sample of
public opinion. As such, I would request that we not call it
a "survey" (has wrong connotations), but a "solicitation of 
public comment." 

RE: independent legal scholars
My request was mainly for "independence" rather than legal scholars 
per se. My concern is that the majority of the Task Force is tied into 
the present UDRP/ICANN system in such a way as to call into question
their ability to independently review substance or procedure. 
E.g., 8 of the 18 are RSPs. I suspect eResolutions' position on 
various issues would be highly predictable, based on their market position
and the same would be true of WIPO and NAF. The same holds for the
constituency reps, many of whom have hard positions defined and
will probably not be open to a fresh look. 

Can't we find a way to bring in people who are outside of the very 
limited circle, often rather incestuous confines of ICANN? 
We need some fresh and unpolitical perspective. I can understand 
why one would resist a totally open WG, but are there no independent 
and widely respected experts in ADR that we can bring in? Just two
or three would do the trick, I think.

We also need to clarify that the committee will work on the basis
of "consensus" and not on the basis of majority vote. <Please, don't
ask me what "consensus" means.> We might also need to specify
how the Chair of the TF will be selected. And no, I don't like the
idea of Philip unilaterally picking one.

I support the ambitious schedule you have defined; it will be
difficult but it needs to be done that fast.

So, with those two minor changes (calling the survey a solicitiation of
comment and addition of two or three independents to the TF) and 
clarifications (TF procedure) I would strongly support sending this to the
NC list in time for approval by June 29 teleconf. 

I will address the role of WGs in a separate message.

>>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 06/19/01 10:03AM
In this regard, with their lawyers and the
lawyers making up the panelist representatives, and given the ip
representative will likely be a lawyer, I wonder whether we need additional
legal representation on this Task Force?  

Finally, while I share your
concerns about the potential problems with surveys, I had intended once we
moved  top the Task Force phase to recommend that the person filling out the
survey check off what is their primary interest in the UDRP (similar to the
interests we have identified in the members of the Task Force).  Finally, I
hesitate to switch the name to Working Group only because it already has
specific connotation and we are not using it in that way.  

Philip, I have tried to incorporate your proposed changes.  While have
eliminated the idea of these issues going to a WG, nothing prevents that
Task For e from throwing an issue for which they believe warrants further
discussion open to a WG during the implemntation phase.

With respect tro the issues, I added two of them.  One of them deals with
supplemental rules (in light f the lawsuit filed against NAF indicating that
they are unfair) and the ability to amend complaints (comments I received
from my constituency).  Of course, if anyone has thought of others let me
know so we can incorporate them.

At this point, and since I have only received substantive comments from your
two (and I thank you dearly for that), I wonder whether we should publish
the draft to the NC so they can review and we can get their input so we can
vote on it at the next teleconference.  If you agree, I would ask that we
indicate that Milton had proposed as an alternative opening this to a WG
rather than using a survey so we can get their input.  

What do you all think?

 <<UDRP Terms of Reference.DOC>> 

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