ICANN/DNSO

UDRP Review Questionnaire


27 February 2002. This questionnaire has been restored upon request from the NC UDRP TF.


Version Francaise
Spanish Version

Credits, french translation : Dan Steinberg
Credits, spanish translation : Erick Iriarte

Pursuant to the UDRP Review and Evaluation Terms of Reference, version 2, which can be found at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
the UDRP Review and Evaluation Task Force hereby submits a questionnaire to solicit public comment through a bottom up, consensus-building DSNO process regarding various aspects of the existing UDRP. The Task Force has drafted this questionnaire with an eye towards not only identifying potential areas of reform, but also generating useful suggestions to the extent that modifications to the UDRP are suggested. Therefore, to the extent that your responses are critical to the existing UDRP, we request that your responses also include proposed solutions.

This questionnaire is initially being submitted in English, but Spanish and French versions will be issued shortly.

Agenda for questionnaire responses :

November 2, 2001 - February 6, 2002
Questionnaire submitted to public for response at least via ICANN's website, and via each UDRP provider's website where permitted.

November 1, 2001 - March 1, 2002
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. Again, the Task Force will attempt to translate this Report from English into as many other languages as possible.

March 1, 2002 - March 10, 2002
The Task Force's Report forwarded to Names Council for review.

March 10-14, 2002
Names Council votes on Report in Ghana.

March 14, 2002 - April 14, 2002
Task Force creates implementation schedule.

We thank you for your time and consideration in completing this questionnaire.

UDRP Review and Evaluation Task Force

November 5, 2001"

QUESTIONNAIRE

Your E-Mail (Mandatory)  
Name  
Last Name  

1. Please put a check next to each category that applies to you.

Constituency member (If so, please indicate which Constituency )
Complainant
Respondent
Panelist (If so, please indicate which Provider )
Other (Please identify your primary interest in the UDRP )

IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN A PARTY TO OR COUNSEL FOR A PARTY IN AN ICANN UDRP PROCEEDING, PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 12.

IF YOU HAVE BEEN A PARTY TO OR COUNSEL FOR A PARTY IN AN ICANN UDRP PROCEEDING, PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS 2-11.

2. Why did you decide to use the UDRP to try to reclaim a domain name rather than using other means (please rank the factors using a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 being the most important factor and 4 being the least important)?
Cost of proceedings
Speed of proceedings
Quality of decisions
Other

3. In selecting a Provider, please rank the factors that most influenced your decision?
Provider reputation
Providerís supplemental rules
Experience of Panelists
Quality of decisions
Geographical diversity of panelists
Other

4. Was the process sufficiently clear to you? Why or why not?

5. Did you feel that the panelist/panelists were impartial and experienced in handling the case? Why or why not?

6. Did you have any communication difficulties such as a language barrier? If so, please describe your experience.

7. Were you represented by counsel? If not, why not?

8. Did you experience any difficulties in collecting or submitting proofs or other materials in the process of dispute resolution? If so, please describe.

9. If you were the Respondent and did not respond to the complaint, why did you decide not to respond?

10. Have you ever challenged a UDRP decision in court? Why or Why not?

11. If you were a Complainant and a transfer or cancellation was ordered, did you experience any difficulty having the order implemented? If so, please describe your experience.

12. Have you ever decided against filing a UDRP complaint and if so, why (please rank the factors using a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the most important factor and 5 being the least important)?
Cost of proceedings
Speed of proceedings
Quality of decisions
Language
Barriers
Other

13. Who do you believe should be responsible for the selection of the provider?
Complainant
Respondent
Both Complainant and Respondent
Neither, provider should be selected randomly
Other (please explain)

14. Should complainants be allowed to amend their complaint? Why or why not, and if so, under what circumstances?

15. Should Respondents be allowed to amend their responses? Why or why not, and if so, under what circumstances?

16. Under what circumstances, if any, should a complainant or respondent be able to transfer a UDRP case from one Provider to another Provider and what would the process look like?

17. Are the notice provisions under the UDRP adequate? Why or why not, and if not, how could they be improved?

18. Do you believe any changes to a Providerís Supplemental Rules are necessary? If so, please identify the Provider(s) and the revisions and/or additions you recommend.

19. Do you believe the providersí supplemental rules should be uniform? Why or why not?

20. Do you believe copies of the complaints and responses should be publicly accessible? Why or why not?

21. If your answer to question 20 is yes, under what circumstances (i.e., mandatory, at the discretion of the parties, before and/or after decision rendered, etc.)?

22. Do you believe that UDRP decisions should be made available in one central place accessible to all panelists and the public? Why or why not?

23. Do you believe the decisions should be in the public domain or should they be the intellectual property of the Providers? Why or why not?

24. Should a Complainant that loses a UDRP case be permitted to re-file the case? Why or why not, and if so, under what circumstances?

25. Should there be any limits on a complainantís ability to withdraw a complaint? Why or why not and if so, what types of limits should be imposed?

26. Should the UDRP provide for any affirmative defenses? Why or why not and if so, what affirmative defenses should be included (laches, acquiescence, domain name is a generic term, etc.)?

27. Should prior UDRP decisions have any preclusive effect in subsequent UDRP proceedings involving the same parties and same domain name(s)?

28. Should prior UDRP decisions have precedential value for future proceedings within the UDRP? Why or why not?

29. Do you think there should be the ability to appeal a decision within the UDRP? Why or why not?

IF YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 33.

30. How should such an appeal process work (i.e., how many panelists should be required to preside over the appeal, should a different provider be required, should all appeals be heard by a single, centralized institution, etc.) and how should it be financed (i.e., who should be responsible for the costs, how should the costs be determined, etc.)?

31. What level of deference, if any, should an appellate panel afford initial panel determinations?

32. Should the right to appeal be automatic? If not, what restrictions should apply?

33. If you have been or are a panelist or provider, do you believe there is sufficient time to review complaints and responses for sufficiency? Why or why not?

34. If you have been or are a UDRP panelist, is access to prior UDRP decisions important to you and if so, is its current form of accessibility adequate?

35. Should panelists be disqualified from representing parties before the UDRP? Why or why not and if so, under what circumstances?

36. Should panelists' law firms be disqualified from representing parties before the UDRP? Why or why not and if so, under what circumstances?

37. Do you believe the issue of "reverse domain name hijacking" is adequately dealt with by the UDRP? Why or why not?

38. If your answer to question 37 is no, how do you propose the UDRP should be amended to adequately deal with reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH), from the perspective of both determining RDNH liability and determining the available remedies against a complainant found liable of RDNH.

39. Do you believe there is a problem in the consistency among UDRP decisions either among panelists or across Providers (please specify) and if so, how would you propose amending the UDRP to ensure consistency among decisions?

40. Section 4(a)(I) of the UDRP requires a Complainant to show that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. Should this section apply only to the physical appearance of the domain name and trade mark/service mark?

41. If your answer to question 40 is no, should the UDRP be amended to include a list of factors to assist the panelists in determining when a confusing similarity exists? Why or why not and if so, what factors should be included?

42. Do you believe both registration in bad faith and use in bad faith should be required to satisfy the bad faith requirement of Section 4(a)? Why or why not?

43. Under what circumstances, if any, should a pending trademark application be sufficient proof for the purposes of a complainant establishing a trademark in which it has rights as required under Section 4(a)(i)? Why or why not?

44. Do you feel that the fees being charged by the providers are appropriate? If not, why not?

45. If you feel that current fees are not appropriate, how do you feel they should be changed?

46. Do you feel that the fees being paid to the panelists are appropriate and if not, how do you feel they should be changed?

47. Should a respondent get a refund on the fee for a three person panel requested by the respondent when the complainant drops the complaint and if so, what type (i.e., full, partial)?

48. Should a complainant get a refund on the fee for a three person panel requested by the complainant when the respondent defaults and if so, what type (i.e., full, partial)?

49. Should the UDRP provide a mandatory mediation service or a cooling off period to allow parties to discuss the dispute and try to reach an amicable solution? If so, what should it look like?

50. Should the UDRP be expanded to cover disputes other than abusive domain name registrations? If so, what other issues should be covered and why?

51. Where a TLD has a charter, should the UDRP be expanded to deal with charter violations? Why or why not?

52. Do you think that the UDRP should be uniform across gTLDs and ccTLDs? Why or why not?

53. If your answer to question 52 is yes, should a complainant be allowed to include both gTLD and ccTLD domain names in one complaint? Why or why not?

54. Are you aware of any other dispute resolution mechanisms (other than court proceedings) for dealing with cybersquatting that you feel show merit in some way? If so, please describe.

55. Have you used a domain name dispute resolution mechanism (other than a court proceeding) other then ICANNís UDRP and if so, which one(s) and what did you like and dislike about it/them?

56. In what way not already indicated above do you feel the UDRP excels or could be improved?