##1########################### 1. Constituency Member IPC 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 1, 4. Yes, where situations arose that were not clear from the rules, I was able to call the provider for clarification. 5. No, in one case, the panelists were from different countries and, in my view, mishandled choice of law issues. 6. No. 7. I was counsel for Complainant in several UDRP proceedings. 8. Lack of a universal Whois search makes it impossible to establish the "pattern of conduct" prong of the bad faith factor. 9. n/a 10. No. But, I may in the near future. 11. No, other than several weeks of delay, the transfer order was succesfully executed. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##2########################### 1. Other Member of the GA 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, Because US Trademark law superceded UDRP, we opted to file in Federal court instead 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 5 14. Yes, if new information has come up. If they did a poor job submitting the complaint, then it is their bad fortune. But if they uncover more information (such as furhter evidence of cybersquatting, significant evidence of confusion, etc.), then it would be approriate to allow an amendment. Also, if the other party amends their response, a rebuttal must be allowed. 15. Very similar to above. If new evidence in uncovered after submission of the response (evidence that the complainant knew about the domain conflict for years and ignored it, or that they are sytematically harassing legitimate domain owners), then this update should be allowed. Also, if the complainant amends their complaint, then an amendment to the response must be allowed. 16. Generally it should not be allowed unless there is either a conflict of interest or of the provider cannot complete theri obligation in a timely manner. The process should be a simple, but formal application to the oversight panel. 17. They are adequatre. If a domain owner uses false information when applying for a domain to avoid contact, it is their fault for missing notice of action. If they do not read their email or open their postal mail in time, then they are impedingthe timely resolution of important matters. 18. Unknown 19. No. This is why there can be multiple providers. If the basics are the same and only the supplemntal rules vary, then it seems OK. 20. Yes. Public oversight is important. Keeping UDRP paperwork private denies the public the ability to view the process. With secrecy, only conspiracy theories will result as various factions "decide% 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##3########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 4, 3. Provider reputation : 4 Provider's supplemental rules : 5 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 3 Other : 6, 4. Yes--the Rules for the Policy are relatively clear as to how the UDRP works 5. Yes--their decisions in the cases I was involved in indicated that they were impartial, and when they were appointed, I checked to see if they had decided any other cases and saw that they had. On review, those other cases indicated a familiarity and grasp of the UDRP 6. No 7. I am counsel, and have represented various complainants in UDRP proceedings 8. No 9. Have never represented Respondent 10. I am currently defending my client in a case brought by an unsuccessful respondent. This is one of the worst features of the UDRP, as it seems to be misunderstood by everyone. There seem to be a number of people who think that Paragraph 4(k) of the UDRP automatically entitles them to go into court to challenge a UDRP decision. This may have to do with the manner in which the UDRP was presented to the various constituencies before it was adopted--it doesn't seem to be a drafting problem, but a perception problem. Additionally, there seems to have been a sense when the UDRP was being drafted that UDRP decisions could be challenged under the various arbitration treaties (the New York treaty, for instance)--but this is in serious doubt in the U.S. in light of the decision in the Netlearning case. The way I read paragraph 4(k), it says that nothing in the UDRP prevents the parties from going into a national court--but it doesn't guarantee the parties the ability to do so; ! ! whether a party can challenge a UDRP decision in a national court depends on the laws of the particular nation. At the very least, this needs to be made much clearer to all parties involved. 11. Only difficulty was where transfer was ordered, then respondent filed challenge in court, and while challenge was pending, registration expired (registrar certificate was NOT deposited with the court). NSI refused to transfer even though registration had expired, and even refused to confirm that the registration had expired, going so far as to indicate that the information in its own WHOIS was inaccurate 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 4 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 1 14. 15. Yes, under the circumstances currently allowed now--where there is some procedural irregularity (i.e., an incorrectly named party or an inartfully drafted consent to jurisdiction) 16. They shouldn't be able to do so--the only reason a respondent is going to transfer a proceeding is because of an alleged provider bias--transferring providers would make sense if there was some basis for it other than perceived provider bias--but the fact that UDRP cases are decided based only on papers removes most, if not all of the other reasons for transferring providers. If respondents are allowed to transfer, there should be a fee associated with that, and the complainant should have the opportunity to object to the provider the respondent wants to transfer to (of course, such an objection, and even such a transfer, defeats the purpose of the UDRP, which is to provide QUICK results). 17. Yes 18. No 19. YES--it seems somewhat problematic for the NAF to allow the submission of responses while the other providers do not--the NAF has basically subverted the UDRP--UDRP caselaw adequately indicates when responses are allowed, and this is not a matter for each provider to decide for itself. If each proivider can decide this for itself, then it adds to the perception (right or wrong) that there is bias against respondents 20. Yes, to foster transparency of decisions--some decisions are very short, and it is hard to figure out why they were decided a certain way without seeing the underlying papers. 21. At the discretion of the parties, after decisions are rendered--there has to be a way of protecting confidential or proprietary information in the pleadings--for this reason, disclosure of papers should not be retroactive UNLESS all parties are contacted and their permission is received 22. YES--this would foster use of previous decisions as precedent, something which is done now and lends some predictability to the UDRP, even though previous decisions do not have precedential value. 23. Decisions are in the public domain 24. No 25. No 26. No--panels aren't to decide those issues--they are only to decided if there has been an registration in violation of the UDRP--some affirmative defenses touch on trademark rights, and thus are issues better left to national courts and registration authorities 27. 28. Yes--it lends predictability to system 29. Yes--this would lend the ability to resolve inconsistent decisions--but it would lengthen process--perhaps appeals could resolve inconsistent decisions without actually deciding cases--maybe iossuing advisory opinions of some sort 30. Centralized institution--party appealing should bear cost 31. limited--udrp decisions are based only on papers, so appellate panel would have everything they need in front of them to decide case 32. No--only when it is necessary to resolve inconsistent decisions 33. 34. 35. No 36. No--if so, pool of panelists will dwindle 37. yes 38. 39. Yes--need appeals mechanism 40. no 41. no--this works fine as is 42. no 43. Where it is based on actual use and has not been rejected by the relevant national office 44. yes 45. 46. 47. 48. yes--partial 49. No 50. no 51. No 52. YES 53. yes 54. No 55. No 56. ##4########################### 1. Panelist WIPO 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Yes, within a short time, for any reason. 15. Yes. Similar 16. none 17. yes 18. no 19. no 20. no 21. 22. yes. for consistentcy 23. public. same reason 24. yes. once is enough. it should be an estoppel 25. no 26. sure, why not 27. yes, as in court 28. yes, for consistency 29. no, it would increase costs. 30. see above 31. see above 32. see above 33. yes 34. yes, and yes 35. yes. normal rules 36. no. it is too hard to serve otherwise 37. yes 38. 39. yes. people do not care about the law in contested proceedings 40. no, all proof should be allowed 41. no, the law is sufficient 42. no, either should be enough to bar use. hoarding marks acquired in bad faith should be remediable. 43. it should not, but common law use use. 44. yes 45. 46. they are low but OK. 47. no, the fees are not that high 48. no. see above 49. no 50. no 51. no 52. yes 53. yes, for efficiency 54. no 55. no 56. ##5########################### 1. Other counsel 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 3 Other : 1, Lack of skill 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 5 14. Yes, same as FRCP 15. Yes, same as FRCP 16. None. 17. Yes. 18. More emphasis on dismissal based on legal and equitable defenses. 19. Yes. Otherwise would promote provider shopping. 20. Yes, in order to curb improper, frivolous, or scandalous pleading. 21. Mandatory in all cases. 22. Yes, but based on quality of current decisions, prior decisions should not be precedential. 23. Public domain, in order to promote public confidence in impartial decisions. 24. No refiling in UDRP forum; only in court. 25. Withdrawal permitted before respondent's appearance; otherwise under FRCP. 26. No, because panels and UDRP jurisdiction not qualified/proper to resolve these defenses. 27. No. 28. No, based on poor quality. 29. No, because poor appellate record. 30. 31. 32. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. Yes, on same grounds as in court. 36. Yes, in all cases, to prevent appearance of favoritism. 37. No, because the current UDRP provides no recourse to victim of attempted reverse domain name hijacking. 38. Fee shifting. 39. Yes, they vary widely. 40. Yes. 41. 42. No. Registration only. 43. None. Pending application is no evidence of trademark rights. 44. Yes. They could be up to double present fees if quality was improved. 45. See above. 46. Comensurate with any increase. 47. Yes, partial dependent on stage of proceeding. 48. Yes, partial dependent on stage of proceeding. 49. No. 50. No. 51. No. Better left to cours. 52. Yes. 53. Yes. 54. No. 55. No. 56. N/A ##6########################### 1. Other student member 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##7########################### 1. Other Potential Complainant / Respondent 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 4 Respondent : 3 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Only under the circumstances of new action by Respondent (i.e. Respondent registers new domain names) or in the case of subsequently discovered fraud. 15. Only in the case of subsequently discovered fraud. Otherwise, there is too much potential to protract the action. 16. In the case of a conflict of interest, or mutual agreement. No idea on process. 17. Yes. 18. None 19. A variation in rules is one of the reasons to have a variety of providers. Otherwise, why bother? 20. No. At least not mandatory. There is some possibility the complaints may contain confidential information, especally concerning marketing practices. 21. Only at discretion of the parties. 22. Yes. Ease of reference and precedent setting. 23. Public domain. See above. 24. Only in the case of a subsequently discovered fraud. 25. Yes, after a response has been filed. Otherwise, there is a strong potential for abuse. 26. Yes. Laches and acquiescence should both apply, as one should not sleep on one's rights. 27. Yes. 28. Yes. The rules propounded are too vague to be applied without some "common law" type interpretations. 29. Perhaps. 30. Cost to be borne by the loser, three panel appeal. Appeal only on evidence before the original proceeding. 31. Abuse of discretion for findings of fact, de novo for conclusions of law. 32. Not automatic. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##8########################### 1. Constituency Member General AssemblyAttorney for domain name owners and trademark owners 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 4 Other : 1, Finality: A UDRP decision is not final if a party files a lawsuit. 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 1 14. Yes, but only when (1) they have new facts to allege that they did not know when they filed their original complaint, or (2) to inform the panel of a change in the underlying law that occurred after the filing of the original complaint. 15. Yes, as above, when (1) they have additional facts to allege that they did not know when they filed their original response, or (2) to inform the panel of a change in the underlying law that occurred after the filing of the original response. 16. Under no circumstances. 17. Respondent should have more time to respond, especially if email to respondent bounces back. 18. I think the supplemental rules need to be addressed, once the UDRP is amended. 19. No, uniformity is not necessary. Let the providers experiment with procedural changes to determine what works best. 20. Yes, the complaints and responses should be public for comparison against the UDRP decisions. The decisions alone provide an insufficient window on the process. 21. I think the papers should be public upon filing. 22. Yse, so that all panelists and the public can search the opinions and learn how the jurisprudence is developing. 23. The decisions as written should be in the public domain so that they may be freely copied and more easily criticized. 24. Yes, but only if there are new facts to allege that were not available or discoverable prior to or during the original case. 25. Any withdrawal of a complaint before the respondent responds and a panelis is chosen should be "without prejudice", while any withdrawal after the respondent responds or a panel is chosen should be "with prejudice". It fairly allocates the burdens of responding to a complaint. 26. Affirmative defenses should be better spelled out and should include a non-exclusive list of each of these items (laches, acquiescence, domain name is generic or merely descriptive term, non-infringing/non-competitive use), and so on. 27. Only with regard to subsequent UDRP proceedings. Since the UDRP is not binding arbitration, lawsuits should not be precluded. 28. Prior UDRP decisions should have *some* precedential value, as we are currently seeing, but they should *not* be binding precedent because different UDRP decisions are often decided under the law of different countries. 29. I think the best way to keep the process streamlined is to keep the process simple. If another layer is added to UDRP, then (1) it should require *both* parties to consent to binding arbitration (so that there is no follow-on court case), and (2) it must be decided by at least three panelists at no greater cost than the present 3-panel system, and (3) each panelist must have participated in some minimum number of UDRP proceedings prior to qualifying for appeals duty. 30. As noted above, I think that any appeal should be a form of binding arbitration, and it must require each party to consent to binding arbitration in lieu of filing a court action. I think at least three panelists should be chosen, and each panelist must have participated in some number of UDRP proceedings prior to qualifying for an appeals panel. The costs should be split by the parties, unless the parties agree beforehand in writing to a different allocation (e.g., loser pays). 31. I think any appeal should be "de novo," which pretty much means *no* deference. The initial decision is set aside. 32. I think an appeal should not be automatic, as I prefer the current "automatic appeal", which is to file a lawsuit. Appeals within the UDRP system should apply the strength of the Providers in supplying arbitration services, and should be limited to cases where both parties agree in writing to binding arbitration. It would still be less expensive than filing a lawsuit (in most cases), but would bring finality to the parties. 33. 34. 35. I don't think panelists should be disqualified from representing parties before the UDRP, so long as they have not been co-panelists within the past 12 months with any panelists chosen to hear the case they are presenting. In such cases, if a person chosen as a panelist to hear a case has served with counsel within the past 12 months, then the proposed panelist should be automatically disqualified. 36. No. In the event that a law firm brings a UDRP action, and an attorney in that law firm is initially proposed as a panelist, then the proposed panelist should be disqualified and a different panelist chosen. 37. Yes, I think it is currently dealt with adequately. 38. 39. I don't think we should be requiring consistency except as to the application of specific rules, since different disputes will be decided under the laws of different countries. 40. No, it should also apply to the *sound* of a mark, which is more important than its "look", and it should apply to translations of the mark into other languages. 41. Yes, a list of factors on a *non-exclusive* basis will be helpful, including sound of the mark, look of the mark, misspellings of the mark, complements (changing letter "o" to number "0"), etc. 42. No, I think it should be changed to (1) registration in bad faith, *or* (2) use in bad faith, *or* (3) non-use in bad faith (warehousing). 43. None. A pending trademark application provides no greater rights than any common law rights that the trademark owner may have. 44. I think that they are about right. If the fees are too high, then parties won't pay them. If the fees are too low, the panelists will not be paid enough to justify their spending an appropriate amount of time on each proceeding. 45. 46. They seem to be adequate for now. 47. Full refund. 48. Full refund on the additional fee, so that the fee would be what the complainant pays for a sole panelist. 49. No. 50. Not at this time. First, let's get the basics right. 51. No; it encourages the filing of baseless complaints against the holder of the charter. 52. Yes, I think the UDRP should be a single, uniform procedure that charter holders are free to adopt or avoid. Given the limitations of the UDRP, I see nothing wrong with charter holders choosing other dispute resolution mechanisms in addition to or instead of the UDRP (e.g., the proposed .us dispute resolution policy). 53. No. The rules of each gTLD and ccTLD may be substanitally different. They should only be combined where the charter holders agree that they may be combined because the registration rules are substantially the same (e.g., .com, .net, .org), or where the differences are minor (e.g., .info). 54. Binding arbitration as it may be less money, and the parties may select one or more arbitrators who are experienced in the technology and the underlying law. Moreover, as implemented by many providers, arbitration is very customizable. Note: For the record, I serve as an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). 55. As noted above, I serve as an arbitrator with AAA, and I like the many different processes that AAA offers. While the process is generally more expensive than UDRP, it is generally less expensive than going to court, and AAA currently offers documents-only arbitration which allows the process to be conducted entirely online in a secure manner. 56. The current UDRP is a good, first cut at a (mostly) non-binding process to cancel or transfer domain names registered or used in violation of a third party's rights. It needs to be improved as noted above, the core approach is good. ##9########################### 1. Other attorney in the field 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 6 Language : 6 Other : 6, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 5 14. yes. at least once without penalty 15. yes. at least once without penalty 16. appearance of prejudice. and another selection made randomly 17. yes 18. no. 19. no. experimentation at this stage will help find a good process. 20. yes. they should be made into forms. 21. 22. yes. for ease of research. 23. public domain. Dispute resolution is a government function currently being privately administered. 24. yes, if the C has new information not previously available. 25. No. Dispute resolution is the entire point of the process. 26. if any should be provided, none of the ones listed. 27. yes, if there is identity of parties and issue. 28. yes, for general matters. However, these disputes are highly individual. 29. yes, to court, where there is clear error. 30. 3 panelists, or a direct apeal to court. 31. clear error 32. yes. 33. 34. 35. appearance of impropriety. 36. attorney ethics rules and ules of judicial administration should apply 37. no 38. unknown 39. no 40. no. it should apply to sound as well. 41. see above 42. no. either is enough for penalization. 43. if there are common law rights to the mark, b/c registration is slow. 44. no. too high. 45. lower 46. no. lower 47. no 48. no 49. no 50. no 51. no 52. no. in each country a mark may have a different context from that used in a gtld. 53. 54. 55. no 56. ##10########################### 1. Other IP attorney 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 6 Language : 6 Other : 6, never decided for or against against filing UDRP complaint 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. Yes, as a result of discovery or finding more information. 15. Yes, as a result of discovery or finding more information. 16. Should be able to transfer only with permission of the other side. 17. Yes. 18. unfamiliar with them 19. not necessarily. 20. No. Could give away corporate strategies before complainant is ready. 21. 22. Yes. Furthers the priniciple of stare decisis. 23. Public domain. They are providing what is essentially a government function, and should be distributed freely. 24. Yes, until the day the URDP permits discovery and amendment of pleadings. 25. No limits, since it fosters settlement and face-saving activities. 26. No, not necessary 27. Yes, provided the parties had a full and fair opportunity to make their cases, including discovery. 28. Yes, stare decisis. 29. No. Claimant can still go to court. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Should not be disqualified if there is no conflict of interest between the disputants. 36. No, if no conflict of interest. 37. unfamiliar 38. 39. I do not perceive a problem. 40. No. 41. Use "Polaroid" factors that are applicable to characters that can be used in domain names. 42. No. Too hard to prove registrant's bad faith with no discovery. 43. Any circumstances. Having a TM application is merely a minimum threshhold. Need to deal with computer hackers into domain registers. 44. yes 45. 46. yes 47. yes, partial. 48. yes, partial. 49. no, not mandatory 50. no. 51. unfamiliar. 52. Yes, stare decisis 53. Yes, it's a small world and we should deal with all the domains in one complaint. 54. no 55. no 56. You should promote the inclusion of UDRP decisions in Westlaw and Lexis. ##11########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 2 Provider's supplemental rules : 3 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 4 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes, although there should be more guidelines on how to get required info (what websites provide the requested info) 5. Yes, long experience with the legal process allowed panelest to consider relevant evidence and dismiss irrelevant statements 6. No 7. I am an attorney and am an in-house counsel for my company 8. As pointed out in 4 above, it was not immediately apparent how to get some requested info about the respondent 9. 10. No, we received a favorable decision. 11. No. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 1 14. Yes, to correct significant typographical errors and if additional significant information comes to their attention (e.g., other URDP complaints/decisions regarding the respondent). 15. Yes, for the same reason as Complaintants. 16. I don't think such a provision is necessary. 17. I do think they are adequate. 18. 19. I do not belive they need to be uniform, but I believe they should be reviewed on a regular basis by ICANN to consider adding them to the UDRP. 20. Yes, as a public record. 21. I belive they should be available after the decision is rendered, unless the prevailing party requests that they not be made public. 22. Yes, to allow a uniform practice to develop in applying the UDRP. 23. Public domain, since they proviode guidance about how the public UDRP will be applied. 24. Yes, if significant new information that was not readily available at the time of first filing (a showing should be made before refiling is permitted). 25. A complainant should be able to withdraw a complaint, but should not be able to refile unless good cause is shown. 26. Generally not, as the procedure will become too involved, especially given the short time to respond to such a defense, which may take considerable time to gather evidence to re 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##12########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 4 Other : 1, only effective cross-border process available 3. Provider reputation : 2 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. process was clear other than electronic versus paper service of documents on respondent 5. yes 6. no 7. i was counsel 8. no 9. 10. no 11. yes but i think it was my client's technical people who could not understand how to effect transfer 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. should be able to amend for short period if no obvious prejudice to Respondent, and respondent has opportunity to respond to amendment 15. only in response 16. 17. adequate 18. have only reviewed WIPO's in detail - no concerns 19. as much as possible - different rules become a trap for the unwary, and detract from the uniformity provided by the UDRP in the first place 20. there is no strong argument to keep them confidential, or to make them public. They should probably be public after the decision is issued, so the decision can be assessed in terms of the evidence and arguments that were before the arbitrator. 21. see answer 20 22. yes - having precedent available is the standard western system of law 23. they should be public domain - they lack the originality to be protectable, and should be reproducible w/o permission for the public interest 24. no. 25. no 26. no - the simplicity of the current test is its primary advantage - introducing further legal concepts to the test will make the process less predictable and less useful 27. yes 28. yes - why reinvent the wheel? 29. it would make sense, but the biggest concern is that the appeal process will be most advantageous to those with the greatest economic power 30. there could be an appeal process, and if so, the costs of the appeal arbitrater or panel should be paid for solely by the appellant. If the original arbitrator is blatantly wrong, that provider (not the parties) should bear the cost of the a 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##13########################### 1. Constituency Member IP 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Once 15. Once 16. Never 17. Possibly slightly longer timeframe 18. No 19. Yes for a uniform process 20. Yes, unless trade secrets are included - those portions could be excluded 21. mandatory after the decision 22. yes, central resource 23. yes, providers did not pay for them, they were hired to do the cases in the first place 24. yes, if a reason for the decision changed - i.e., if a decision was due to a website not being active and a website goes active after the decision, then the ability to refile should be allowed 25. no, but should bear the full costs of a three judge panel 26. no, let the courts handle these cases, UDRP should be for simple ones 27. yes 28. yes to build a consistent record 29. yes 30. 3 or more panelists with one from each provider, loser pays 31. some 32. probably as long as the appellant bears the costs 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. yes, all circumstances 36. possibly 37. yes, several cases have upheld the concept 38. 39. need an appellate level 40. no 41. yes, to create a common standard; the factors are best suggested by others 42. no, registrations should be good enough 43. filed prior tor within a few days of the domain being registered 44. yes 45. 46. no idea 47. yes, full 48. yes, full 49. no 50. perhaps charters 51. yes, something is needed 52. to the greatest extent possible 53. no, perhaps different judges 54. no 55. no 56. n/a ##14########################### 1. Other Attorney 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Yes -- Same standred as U.S. Courts 15. Yes -- Same standard as U.S. courts 16. Conflict 17. Yes 18. 19. Yes 20. Yes -- Public review provides better decisions 21. Mandatory 22. Yes -- Public review provides better decisions 23. Public Domain 24. Yes 25. No 26. All traditional affirmative defenses should be allowed 27. Between parties and privvies yes 28. Yes 29. No 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Yes either be an advocate or a panelist 36. Depends. Certainly not in a case where an advocate or in related matter. 37. Yes 38. 39. There is little consistency. 40. No -- Sound alike also 41. Dupont factors 42. No -- Either 43. Most circumstances unless descriptive without secondary meaning. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##15########################### 1. Other legal counsel for both Complainants and Respondents 2. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 6 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. Yes, but I am accustomed to procedural rules. Some clients have difficultly with the various rules. 5. Yes -- I have been on each side of a UDRP dispute, and I felt the panelists were accurate. 6. No. 7. I am legal counsel. 8. The lack of an effective Whois search interface prevents the collection of domains owned by a particular entity. Also, the proliferation of false information prevents an accurate accounting of domains. 9. N/A 10. I have not, but I have had Respondents challenge a UDRP decision. 11. Yes, NetSol took 6 months to transfer a name after transfer was ordered. I am not sure why. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. No. Without a discovery process there is no need. 15. No. 16. I do not think a transfer would be appropriate under any circumstances. This would detract from the cost/speed savings of the UDRP. 17. I believe they are. Whois information should be accurate. If not, then that's the registrant's folly. 18. 19. Yes, to greater curb legal expenses. 20. No. I see no need. 21. 22. Yes. As the UDRP grows, the need for accurate and uniform research of prior UDRP decisions grows. 23. Public domain. 24. Yes, if the Registrant changes. 25. No withdrawal after response. 26. Yes, but I am not sure they need be listed. 27. Yes. 28. Yes. 29. Yes. 30. 1 panelist on appeal; funded by appellant. 31. So long as there is some evidence to support the determination, uphold. 32. Auto. 33. 34. 35. Yes. 36. No. 37. No -- there are no repercussions. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##16########################### 1. Constituency Member Intellectual Property Attorney 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 4 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : , 1 14. Yes, if new facts come to light. 15. Yes if new facts come to light. 16. Proven bias 17. 18. 19. Yes, to avoid forum shopping. 20. Yes, in order to fully understand the decisions. 21. After a decision is rendered. 22. Yes, in order to provide a searchable database. 23. Public domain, so that the public can understand the decisions. 24. No. Res judicata and collateral estoppel. 25. It should be allowed until a response is filed. Thereafter it should be dismissed with prejudice. 26. Yes. Essentially all affirmative defenses available in a trademark action. 27. Yes. Claim preclusion, res judicata and collateral estoppel. 28. Yes to give guidance to parties in future disputes. 29. No. The theory is to provide prompt and inexpensive resolution. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. yes 36. no 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. When it is use-based rather than intent to use. 44. yes 45. 46. 47. Yes, full. 48. No. She got what she asked for. 49. no 50. no 51. no 52. yes. Consistency of rules is less costly for all. 53. Yes, for savings of resources. 54. 55. 56. ##17########################### 1. Other Attorney involved with Internet issues, including domain names 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 4 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 1 14. Yes, in response to new issues brought up by repsondent 15. Yes, only if complaint amended 16. Provider has conflict or unable to perform provider function. Same as selection of original provider 17. 18. 19. 20. Only if complainant and respondent agree 21. At discretion of parties 22. Yes, for the purpose uniformity and ease of access 23. Decisions should be in public domain. Allows for ability to determine what should be precedent 24. On refile, only if new relevant facts included 25. Can withdraw complaint as matter of right if no response filed. If response filed only with concurrence of respondent 26. Yes. Laches, acquiensence, and any other defense that would be appropriate to request that registration of mark be cancelled 27. Yes, should have res judicata effect. 28. Minimal, if any precedential value, since provider not always same. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##18########################### 1. Other AIPLA & International Law student 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 3 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 4 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes but I had assistance with the process 5. This is a fairly new area to everyone. The concern is that we all continue the process together and domination is not a key word! 6. I am fortunately multi-lingual. 7. Did not directly come into contact with them; representation 8. No. 9. N/a 10. N/a 11. No 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 5 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 2 Respondent : 3 oth Complainant and Respondent : 4 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Amend 15. Yes 16. Transfer rules should be discussed per case 17. Fair 18. Yes 19. No - individual cases again 20. YES! 21. Mandatory! 22. YES - ease 23. Pub domain 24. YES 25. No limits to withdraw 26. YES 27. Yes 28. Yes 29. Appeal after 3rd time is ridiculous - limitations should be set 30. costs determined by situation... 31. 32. Yes but again minimal limitations 33. N/a 34. YES 35. NO 36. NO 37. YES - becoming more rare 38. 39. consistency is needed across the board as we continue to develop 40. more than physical appearance please... 41. 42. bad faith alone is cause 43. someone cared enough to at least file the application vs. those who did not... 44. would certainly appreciate a discount as a student! 45. as above 46. as above 47. yes 48. yes 49. mediation preferred and also cheaper 50. yes 51. yes- this will grow folks 52. yes 53. yes 54. pummel them w/ PR 55. 56. this is a start ##19########################### 1. Other AIPLA Member 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 6 Language : 6 Other : 4, Was unsure if other remedies were more appropriate since respondent should not have been awarded names in first place and were subject to losing them for filing false information. However, I did not know if I challenged and won, would I received the name. I would have lost my money and the name in that case. 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. Yes, if the rules change and the new rules are going to apply, then complain should be allowed to amend and where there was unclear explanations in the first place. 15. same as in previous answer. 16. Not sure 17. Not sure 18. Not sure 19. Not sure 20. Not sure, but if they are, personal information should be protected. 21. 22. Generally yes, unless there is a reason to protect the information for a particular case 23. Should be public domain. It will help other potential filers know whether they should file or not. Give some predictability and accountability. 24. Only under certain circumstances, such as a Supreme Court or shift by a UDRP ruling that would likely favoe the loser. But for continuity purposes, should not be too open to allow this feature. 25. Well a complainant should be allowed to withdraw as this will alleviate unecessary hearings. Likely up to a decision since this can promote negotiations with the parties. However there should be somewhat of a penalty to discourage frivolous filings. 26. Not sure, but should state possible defenses but not sure if they should be affirmative. Possibly can be affirmative if amendments are allowed. 27. Well this would give predictibility, but if there are Supreme Court decisions otherwise then they should not. 28. To the extent that the cases are argued similary or that the facts can be shown to be similar this will have a level of predictibility and reduce frivolous filings. 29. There should be an appeal process since UDRP may make a mistake. 30. a panel of at least 3 with majority of the three agreeing. A different provider should be required. Cost should go to challenger with some exceptions. 31. A high level unless clearly erroneous. 32. Yes, unless the case also violates some law or another case is so similar that it would be a waste of time to appeal. And assuming that the reasons for deciding the other case are still valid or current policy. 33. Never been 34. 35. Under certain circumstanes. One would be where there gives the appearance of impropriety. 36. If there is some reason to believe that there is impropriety 37. Not sure 38. 39. have heard that there is inconsistency. Not sure how to ensure since facts may be different. 40. Not sure. Difficult to say. They may be some circumstances when this should be done and others when it should not be done. 41. Where rules can be established they should be for predictibility purposes and where difficult, a level of scrutiny should be determined and applied. 42. Yes, because bad faith registration is easy to show even when it may have been a mistake. It seems difficult to unregister a name. 43. Where it is not generic and other common reasons for not applying a trademark should be satisfied. 44. Some are high. Some are appropriate. None are too low. 45. Should be a maximum price as long as not an antitrust issue 46. Not sure what they are. But it is possible that they should be paid something. 47. Yes, partial if negotiated settlement, full if not. 48. Same for Number 47. 49. Negotiation period should be allowed but not overly long. Just provide a period of time and an online forum, but allow email or phone conversations in private. The time period can be ended earlier than the preset time period, but provide a day to change mind by the one who ended the period. 50. Not sure 51. Yes, purpose of having a charter. 52. May not be practical, but should be where practical. 53. Same answer is 52. 54. No 55. No 56. It should be explained who can dispute. If someone who does not have a trademark wants to challenge because someone claims to have to have one and the challenger wins, will he/she get the domain name? ##20########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 4 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. Yes. 5. For the most part, although I usually do not pay that much attention to the panelist's past experience. 6. No. 7. I am counsel and have represented several clients. 8. No. 9. NA 10. No, because I have always been satisfied with the outcome. 11. Not usually. Once the domain name registration expired during the pendency of a case in which the Respondent had recently agreed to transfer the domain name during settlement discussions, which complicated matters. However, the delay that this caused was due more to the Respondent's actions than that of the UDRP panel or Registrar. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : , 1 14. Yes, if information/evidence is acquired after the filing of the complaint that was not available before filing. 15. Yes, under the same circumstances as mentioned in Quest. 14. 16. 17. Yes. 18. Do not have any changes in mind. 19. To the extent that they can be, they should be, with the realizations that certain factors may not be able to be identical. 20. Yes, as it is worthwhile to know what facts a panel focused on in making its decision, as can be discerned by reading the opinion, it might also be worthwhile to read the pleadings to discern what facts were overlooked as unimportant by the panel. 21. 22. Does not seem necessary. If one wants to know how a particular provider has been deciding cases, they can search their web site. 23. They should be in the public domain, just like court decisions, in order to guide practitioners in fashioning their own pleadings. 24. They should be able to refile in court, but not to a provider, otherwise the case is more likely to drag on until the wealthier party wins. 25. There should be a limit on getting a refund for complainants, in order to deter frivilous filings, but not on their ability to withdra 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##22########################### 1. Other Attorney representing both complainants and respondents 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. Yes with the exception of NAF's rule for calculating the reply deadline 5. Not always--one panelist referred to my client's mark as "famous" even though I hadn't asserted that in the complaint 6. No 7. 8. Yes; I had trouble finding the registrar's rules that applied at the time the registrant registered the domain name. (The registrant had challenged ICANN's jurisdiction) 9. N/A 10. No. I have been satisfied with the decisions (even where I lost). 11. No. In fact one regisrar transferred the domain to my client before the expiration of the waiting period. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, Insufficient evidence of bad faith 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 4 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Yes, to correct errors or add new evidence. 15. Yes, for the same reasons 16. Never--if respondent is unhappy with the provider he at least has the option of choosing a panelist from another provider 17. Respondent should be given a longer time to respond 18. All providers should permit reply briefs. 19. Yes. 20. Yes 21. 22. Yes 23. Like court decisions, they should be in the public domain 24. No--not against the same party absent very unusual circumstances 25. No 26. Yes; reverse domain name hijacking; and all of the above 27. Yes 28. No---only informally (already too many inconsistent and bad opinions) 29. Yes; clearly bad decisions should be appealable 30. There should be at least 3 panelists but beyond that not sure 31. None 32. Yes 33. 34. 35. No 36. No 37. Not sure 38. 39. Yes. Appelate review would help 40. No 41. No, flexibiiltiy is needed 42. No--one or the other should suffice 43. A pending application should be sufficient if it is based on use rather than intent to use 44. yes 45. 46. Not sure 47. Yes, full 48. Yes, full 49. No 50. ? 51. ? 52. Yes 53. Yes 54. No 55. No 56. ##23########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. YES 5. YES 6. YES, WE ARE NOW FACING A CASE WHERE THE RESPONDENT TRANSFER THE DOMAIN NAME TO A KOREAN REGISTRANT, FORCING US TO SUBMITT TO A DIFFERENTE LANGUAGE (KOREAN), AND JURISDICTION (KOREA), NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT DOMAIN IN DISPUTE IS A TLD (.COM) 7. ATTORNEY AT LAW 8. YES, SOMETIMES THE RULES ARE NOT CLEAR AS TO THE FORMALITIES WHICH HAS TO BE FULFILLED BY THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED 9. 10. NO 11. LITTEL CONFUSING WHEN CONTACTING THE REGISTRAR 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : , 1 14. YES, SPECIALLY BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT IS PREVIOUSLY INFORMED OF THE FACT THAT A PROCEDURE HAS BEEN INITIATED AGAINST HIM, AND THEN HE COULD REACT USING THE DOMAIN NAME IN A DIFFERENT WAY 15. NO, THE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO PREPARE THEIR DEFENSES 16. 17. THE NOTICE SHOULD ALWAYS BE GIVE IN TWO LANGUAGES , BEING ENGLISH ALWAYS MANDATORY 18. LANGUAGES 19. YES 20. YES 21. 22. YES 23. NO 24. YES 25. NO, THIS IS NOT PUBLIC INTEREST 26. yes, domain name isa generic term, or the trademark lack of disctinicveness 27. no 28. YES 29. YES, IN ORDER TO CONCLUDE THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE SAME JURISDICTION 30. THE PARTY WHO APPEAL SHOULD FINANCE THE COSTS. THE APPEAL SHOULD BE SEEN BY THE SAME PROVIDER, BUT WITH DIFFERENT PANELISTS 31. NONE 32. YES 33. 34. 35. NO 36. NO 37. YES 38. 39. 40. NO 41. YES 42. DEPENDS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE 43. ALWAYS, UNLESS THE APPLICATION IS A GENERIC OR DESCRIPTIVE TERM 44. YES 45. 46. YES 47. PARTIAL 48. PARTIAL 49. NO 50. YES, ANY TRADEMARK OR COPYRIGHT CASE 51. YES 52. YES 53. YES 54. NO 55. NO 56. ##24########################### 1. Other Attorney 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 3 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. Sufficiently clear - rules and arbitration associations provided assistance. 5. Yes. Most of them seem to have intellectual property backgrounds. 6. No. 7. No. I was the counsel representing clients. 8. No. 9. 10. No. I was on the prevailing side each time. 11. No. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. Yes. If respondent changes its actions in response to service of complaint. 15. No. 16. Never. 17. Yes - Adequate. 18. They should be uniform. 19. Yes. To remove the temptation for forum shopping. 20. Yes, in the interest of public disclosure and to reduce the cost of researching decisions. 21. 22. Yes, to reduce the cost of researching decisions. 23. Public Domain. 24. No, there is an adequate appeal process available at the present time. 25. A complainantant should be allowed unlimited ability to withdraw any claim or all of the complaint. 26. None. 27. No opinion. 28. No opinion. 29. No. 30. 31. 32. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. Disqualified if representing any party in a prior preceeding where the panelist presided. 36. No opinion. 37. Yes. 38. 39. 40. No. 41. No opinion. 42. 43. 44. No opinion 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##25########################### 1. Complainant assist NAD panelist 2. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 2, enforcement of judgment via registrar 3. Provider reputation : 2 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 6, 4. The process is sufficiently clear, but the standards utilized by panels varies and "case law" is not easily searched. 5. Impartial. Having researched the panalists I know they did not always find for Claimant (as many critics complain). 6. No. 7. Was counsel. 8. Yes, closed "whois" databases in some domains / registrars prevent collection of data on repeat cybersquatters prior to filing a UDRP. Closed registrars generally release information on a user once a UDRP has been filed on a single name. We submit supplemental letters with this information, but the rules do not require the panels to consider a supplemental submission of this kind. Closed who-is domains / registers protect squatters and frustrate pre-litigation settlement attempts. 9. 10. 11. Registrar did not transfer based upon order by NAD. We had to repeatedly request transfer, transfer took place after three weeks. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 6 Other : 1, Cases going against known cybersquatters with potentially generic domains. 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 5 14. 1) AMEND: To supplement information from closed who-is TLD / registrars (only available after filing of UDRP). 2) REPLY: If Respondant responds, Complainant should get a sur-response (and the Respondant should have a sur-reply to that filing). , Complainant should be able to answer issues raised in reply. NAD of the Better Business Bureau has good quick model for "sur-replys". 15. Same as answer to 14. 16. Under no circumstances except conflict of some sort with provider that prevents fair finding of fact by panelist(s). 17. Entirely adequate. It is the responsiblity of a registrant to give real contact information and keep it updated. 18. 19. Yes, if they could be 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##26########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 3 Experience of Panelists : 4 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No 7. Yes 8. No 9. 10. No; satisfied with results 11. Yes; registrar failed to implement mandated transfer, registration lapsed, and domain name was registered by third party 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 3 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 4 Other : , 1 14. Yes; if warranted by new matter introduced in response or discovered during pendency of proceeding 15. 16. 17. Yes 18. No 19. Yes; simplicity 20. 21. 22. Yes 23. Public domain 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. No 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. No 41. 42. No--registration without use should be sufficient 43. 44. Yes 45. 46. Yes 47. 48. 49. No 50. No 51. 52. Yes 53. Yes 54. 55. ACPA 56. ##27########################### 1. Other trademark lawyer 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 4, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 6, 4. the availability and location of rules could be more clear. 5. NA 6. NA 7. NA 8. NA 9. NA 10. No. 11. NA 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 5 Other : 6, 13. Complainant : 2 Respondent : 2 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : , 1 14. Yes 15. Yes 16. No transfer if system proposed in 13 implemented. 17. Not sure 18. Don't know 19. Yes. 20. Yes 21. Mandatory 22. Yes, that would help counsel provide better counsel by knowing how they would rule in most instances. 23. Public - see 22 24. Not unless some important fact changes. 25. Until answer is given 26. Yes for there may be reasons why the complainant is partially responsible for the situation and that should come out. 27. I am not sure what you mean. 28. Yes, better counsel if we are learning from past decisions. 29. No, you can go to court if you don't like the result. 30. 31. 32. 33. NA 34. NA 35. No 36. No 37. Not sure 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. Yes 52. Yes 53. Yes 54. No 55. Went to US district court. Very expensive and the judge had never been on the net. Not good. 56. ##28########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 2 Experience of Panelists : 4 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No 7. I am in-house counsel and represented the company 8. No 9. 10. No 11. No 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 2 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 4 Other : , 1 14. Yes -- if there is new information or evidence 15. Yes -- but only in response to amended complaint 16. None 17. Yes 18. 19. No 20. Yes 21. 22. Yes -- create uniform body of decisions 23. Public domain -- like court cases 24. No 25. No 26. Yes 27. Yes 28. Yes 29. No 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. No 37. Yes 38. 39. Yes 40. No 41. Yes 42. No 43. 44. Yes 45. 46. Yes 47. No 48. Yes -- partial 49. No -- usually done anyway 50. No 51. Yes 52. Yes 53. Yes 54. 55. 56. ##29########################### 1. 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##30########################### 1. Panelist CPR Institute 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, Requires bad faith in actual use of the domain name. No injunctive remedies 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. Upon major new issues raised by the respondent 15. no. 16. Never 17. They are adequate 18. No. 19. Yes. 20. Yes. To understand better the rulings 21. Mandatory after the decision 22. Yes. They should be available centrally to permit finding the jurisprudence 23. Decisions should be in the public domain 24. 25. No. Not under any circumstances 26. Yes. UDRP should provide for the affirmative defenses of laches, acquiescence, abandment 27. 28. Yes. 29. No. To permit quick finality 30. 31. 32. 33. Yes. There is sufficient time. 34. Yes, acess to previous panel decisions is important and the current form of access is inadequate. 35. Yes. They should be disqualified based on a conflict of interest under the american judicial standard. 36. No. 37. Yes. 38. Yes. 39. Yes. 40. Yes. 41. Yes. 42. No. Because the Anicybersquating Act does not require use in bad faith and registration in bad faith is sufficent. 43. Never. 44. No. The panelist are underpaid 45. They should be increased 46. They should be increased 47. Partial refund 48. Partial 49. No. That would delay the decision 50. No. 51. I don't know what a chater is. 52. Yes. 53. Yes, if they have the same root characters and involve the came complainant's trademark 54. NO. 55. NO. 56. ##31########################### 1. Constituency Member Inta 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. no opinion 15. no opinion 16. no opinion 17. no opinion 18. no opinion 19. no opinion 20. no opinion 21. no opinion 22. no opinion 23. public domain 24. no 25. yes. 26. yes. generic term 27. yes 28. yes 29. no, too costly 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##32########################### 1. Complainant ? 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 4 Other : 3, PREDICTABILITY OF RESULT 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 5 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 4, POOR REPUTATION OF SOME OF THE providers other than WIPO 4. yES 5. yES -- very smooth procedure 6. none, in spite of dealing with overseas attys.. 7. I was counsel 8. no. 9. 10. no 11. yes. some registrars are poorly run, like joker.com. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, Not having a "slam-dunk" case. that would be the only reason. 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : , 1 14. Sure, but in a very narrow window of time. 15. same 16. None. for what reason? 17. yes. 18. not offhand. 19. Substantively, of course. otherwise, variations are ok. 20. Yes. 21. ? You mean #20? 22. yes but I'm not sure that they should be citable as precedent 23. public domain. what could be more public than a domain name? 24. not if it loses for substantive reasons. 25. no. 26. Yes. genericness is a good example. 27. depends. as a rule, yes, or there should be a contempt mechanism. 28. probably not -- too fact specific. 29. no. streamlined is streamlined 30. 31. 32. 33. -- 34. -- 35. yes. 36. no. 37. yes 38. 39. yes. has to do with quality of panelists. ALL should be experienced TM practitioners or judges. 40. Huh? 41. -- 42. no. Registration in bad faith is sufficient. 43. never. doesn't prove actual use. 44. yes. 45. 46. don't know. 47. full. 48. full. 49. no. this is about black and white situations. 50. no. 51. no. 52. yes. 53. yes, if second level domain names are identical. 54. 55. 56. It excels in speed and elegance for properly chosen cases. Onlin-eonly aspect is outstanding. ##33########################### 1. Constituency Member INTA 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 4, Expertise of Panel 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. Yes. We are trademark law practitioners. 5. The decision showed an understanding of the issues. 6. No. 7. Yes. 8. Not in this case because Respondent was a repeat 'offender' and there were news stories regarding his activities. 9. 10. No. We won. 11. Not at this time. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 3 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Yes. When subsequent pleadings materially change the facts. 15. Only in response to an Amended Complaint, or newly discovered evidence, before a decision. 16. Conflict of interest. 17. Yes. 18. No. 19. Yes. Uniformity will support fair treatment. 20. Yes. Public access and opportunity for criticism enhance the responsiveness and perception of fairness of the system. 21. Mandadory, after decision rendered. 22. Yes. Same as 20. 23. They should be in the public domain as court decisions are. 24. Only if there is new evidence, change in circumstances, fraud, etc. 25. No limits. 26. Yes. All those listed. Affirmative defenses should mirror trademark law defenses, with exception of misuse/antitrust. 27. If same parties and identical names, decisions should be final as to parties. 28. Depends on thoroughness of analysis, whether they are public. They should be persuasive, but not necessarily stare decisis. 29. Possibly, if it wouldn't detract from the speed and economy. 30. Perhaps three, losing party (appellant) pays. 31. Could review de novo, since there aren't actual fact findings. 32. Yes, subject to answer to 30. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. Yes, potential conflicts. 36. Perhaps. 37. As far as I know. 38. 39. No. 40. Sound, appearance or meaning could all be considered in appropriate circumstances, but heavily weighted by intent, e.g. misspelling but phonetic similarity shouldn't let a cybersquatter off. 41. Yes. Intent, similarity of names, number of similar names. Actually, most of the factors on intent in the US Cybersquatting act are relevant. 42. No. Registration in bad faith for blocking purposes may be as bad as registration plus use. 43. Perhaps where there is actual knowledge by the respondent and bad intent, and the trademark owner has used the mark, priority based on the application could be recognized. 44. Yes. 45. 46. Yes. 47. Depends on circumstances. 48. Partial. 49. No. 50. No. 51. Don't know. 52. Probably. 53. 54. Private arbitration/mediation/settlement. 55. Private settlement between competent attorneys. 56. ##34########################### 1. Other as an attorney for various complainants 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. yes 5. yes 6. no 7. 8. no 9. 10. no 11. yes. Verisign/Network Solutions has never been consistent in notifying the Complainant re: how to effect the transfer. Sometimes they email us, sometimes they don't. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. 15. 16. never 17. yes 18. 19. no - free market principles 20. 21. 22. yes - for information purposes - they are available in LEXIS and WESTLAW 23. public domain - are you implying that someone could not use the decision without getting permission??????? 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. yes - fro consistency 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##35########################### 1. Constituency Member Business 2. Cost of Proceedings : 3 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 5 Experience of Panelists : 4 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 2 Other : 1, 4. yes 5. yes 6. no 7. yes 8. no 9. 10. no - all decisions have gone in our favor. 11. no 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 5 Other : 1, A letter seemed more effective and less costly 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : , 1 14. yes - inadvertent omission; subsequent developments - within tight time limits 15. yes, but within tight time limits 16. ? 17. yes 18. no 19. generally, yes - streamlining procedure 20. yes - deterrence 21. ? 22. yes - deterrence, tracking of general trends in enforcement, outcome 23. public domain - as adjudications of public rights between parties, they are important public information 24. no - UCPA procedure is available through courts 25. ? 26. no - it would slow down the process; current defenses are adequate 27. yes 28. many cyber-squatters engage in a pattern of unlawful conduct that should be easier to challenge 29. no 30. 31. 32. 33. n/a 34. n/a 35. only if they have decided cases involving the particular client or adverse party 36. no - the normal conflict procedures should sort this out 37. ? 38. n/a 39. no 40. no 41. sound and appearance - common spelling/mis-spelling 42. no - good faith registration could be superseded by bad faith use, which should be reachable by UDRP 43. this is not a dispositive factor but should be taken into account in the overall context - common law use is also relevant 44. yes 45. n/a 46. yes 47. no 48. no 49. no 50. no 51. worth a look - uncertain 52. YES!!!!! ccTLD procedure is chaotic, inconsistent and frequently unfair 53. n/a 54. no 55. no 56. It's an excellent way to bring about a quick resolution, particularly for testablished owners of distinctive marks. ##36########################### 1. Respondent 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, Not selected, he was assigned 4. Yes. The rules are well laid out. 5. No. From my case and others that I have heard and studied, the panelists seeem to be grossly slanted in favor of big business. The little guy doesn't have much of a chance. 6. Yes. There were miscommunications about the date the brief was due. The due date fell on a Saturday and it was unclear when the brief needed to be filed. It is still unclear to me now. 7. I was counsel for respondent. 8. Yes. Not everything can be submitted via email and typically mail service don't operate on Saturday. If the due date falls on a Saturday, the UDRP should do exactly what the courts and the Federal Court does. 9. N/A 10. The decision is presently being challenged in court. 11. N/A 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, The reason to decide not to is because unless both sides agree it is fair, then it is a complete waste of time. This should be mediation and not arbitration. UDRP should use skilled mediators. 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Yes. Have the ability to have a full and fair hearing for both sides. More mediation less arbitration. 15. Yes, see above. 16. On the basis of bias. Someone who only represents big trademark holders should not be allowed to decide cases between a big guy and a small one. There is an inherent bias there. The complete background including the type of cases the Provider did or does should be disclosed and then the parties can decide. Basically, UDRP needs to hire more small firms or individual practitioners. 17. Yes. Extend time to 30 days plus one extension of time of 30 days. 18. No opinion. 19. Not necessarily. It depends on the case and what the parties are willing to agree to. 20. Yes. Encourage complete disclosure. Find the truth and the fair answer will follow 21. Mandatory. However, should be sealed to preserve trade secrets and the like. 22. Yes. Full disclosure. 23. Public domain with the caveat set forth above about trade and business secrets. 24. No. One shot at UDRP and then it's on to the court. 25. Yes. Once and if the facts support the decisions. If for harassment no. 26. Yes. Fairness should always be a guide. 27. Yes. Harassment is always a concern. 28. No. These are not judges nor could UDRP be in a position to hire the same. 29. Yes. To ensure fairness and have due process with a court if necessary. 30. Loser pays the costs. 31. Trial denovo. 32. Yes. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. yES. See my reasons above. 36. Yes. See my reasons above. 37. No. 38. This is a difficult question and I don't have the time for this right now. 39. Yes. Panelists need to be trained and the rules need to be explained in detail. 40. Yes. 41. N/A 42. Yes. The whole UDRP was set up for "cyber squatting". Panelists should not be asked to do what a federal court can do much better. Panelists tend to go far beyond the scope of the literal words of the section. 43. None. 44. Yes. 45. Probably raised to attract the best people. 46. See above. 47. No. 48. No. 49. Yes. With experience mediator to assist. 50. No. 51. No. 52. No. 53. 54. N/A 55. See above. 56. See above. ##37########################### 1. Panelist wipo 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, meeting bad faith criteria 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 3 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. yes as new information is found 15. yes-same reason but no more than one month delay 16. no 17. yes 18. no 19. yes so the work becomes more evenly distributed and decisions more uniform 20. absolutely so everyone is fully informed 21. mandatory 22. 23. public domain-for education of the process and uniformity 24. no.shouldnt clog up the system.go to court if felt unfairly treated 25. no as long as no significant effort has been supplied by respondent or arbitrator. 26. already built into the system as arbitrators evaluate the strength of the complainant's case and all these issues should be brought to his attention 27. no 28. no but arbitrators should always look for consistency 29. no- not set up for it.like any arbitration,you go to court.the process should always remain inexpensive 30. 31. 32. yes 33. yes.my nine cases so far have been pretty quick to read.only the analysis takes some time 34. yes and yes 35. no-completely unnecessary. we can ethically make the distinctions 36. no-same answer 37. no-need a penalty of money where rdnh exists and is clear. 38. add a sanction of costs and set forth the burden of proof as well as additional punitive measures if warranted 39. not within wipo-but sense a difference with eresolutions being a little out of step. corrections through knowledge transmittal.perhaps as wipo does have a mandatory 1 day session of all panelists,country by country,every year and all panelists of all providers in attendance at the one time 40. no-all aspects 41. all polarad factors/seconday meaning factors should be made available by the complainant 42. no-one is enough.the case is made for bad faith with one. 43. none-should so some use to prove source identification,ie,potential for harm 44. yes 45. N.A. 46. appropriate 47. yes-full 48. no,he gets the domain name usually and if he doesnt he never had the right to bring the case 49. no as these are bad faith proceedings and cooling off would be inappropriate 50. not yet but eventually should cover all domain name difficulties with broader powers for arbitrators and higher cost structures 51. yes-for uniformity 52. yes-obvious same system which is working very well should be accessible by all 53. no as there may be different issues when a specific country involved.this assumes no one country will adopt exactly all udrp language. 54. no 55. 56. just more publication of results will get the message to parties ##38########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 3 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 5 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 5 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 2 Other : 1, 4. Yes. Rule are available. 5. Yes. 6. No. 7. I was counsel. 8. No. 9. N/A 10. No. 11. Yes. Registrar representatives are unfamiliar with the process or the registrar was slow in executing the order. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. No, it would impair the expendiency of the action. 15. No. See 14. 16. Under no circumstances, in my opinion. 17. Yes 18. No. 19. No, parties are free to choose. 20. Yes, for research and analysis purposers. 21. All 22. Yes, see 20. 23. Public domain. 24. No. 25. No. 26. I'd have to sit and ponder this one. No time to do so right now. 27. Yes 28. Yes 29. Yes. 30. 31. 32. No, any fair restrictions would be welcome. 33. 34. Yes 35. 36. NO 37. Yes 38. 39. Not really 40. No. 41. It would be helpful 42. Yes 43. Perhaps a rebuttable presumption would be appropriate - anything more would be in conflict with U.S. trademark lawse inconsistant 44. Yes 45. 46. I don't know what they are paid. 47. Yes, Full 48. No. 49. No. 50. 51. 52. Yes 53. Yes 54. No 55. No 56. ##39########################### 1. Other Complainant's counsel 2. Cost of Proceedings : 3 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 6 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 6 Quality of decisions : 5 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. Some guidelines on evidentiary standards would be helpful, but otherwise, once I found it, it was pretty clear. 5. Yes, because the panelist hit on all of the relevant points. 6. No. 7. I am counsel - I just went back up to Question 1 and "unchecked" complainant. 8. A list of registrars and how to find out who they are would be helpful. In addition, is a declaration of facts not available on paper necessary, or will a verified complaint suffice? 9. N/A 10. No, haven't lost. 11. Only in that the client's IT person submitted the info and got the NIC number, instead of supplying it to us. The transfer went through smoothly, but from what I have heard, others have been having trouble. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, Needed remedy beyond tranfer of domain name 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Yes, in cases where it seems appropriate - they should be given one additional opportunity. 15. Yes, in cases where it seems appropriate - they should be given one additional opportunity. 16. It should be done by simple request, with any excess fee charged to the moving party, and any refunds given to the payee 17. Yes - I haven't had a problem. 18. Add evidentiary guidelines - acceptable/unacceptable/recommended. Drop the multiple copy requirement in addition to e-mail and take Annexes in forms other than Word documents 19. YES, if they were all the same, one could easily choose to use different Providers, rather than having to research and set up a new type of compaint. 20. Yes, with provisions for privileged information to be redacted or otherwise protected upon motion from party/parties 21. Public record at all times, subject to request for privileged information (sales figures, for example) to be redacted or otherwise kept private 22. YES, 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##40########################### 1. Constituency Member counsel for trademark owner 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 1, 4. Yes Rules were clear 5. Yes They reached the right result. 6. No 7. Yes 8. No 9. NA 10. No Never had an adverse decision 11. No 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, Concluded that UDRP did not cover the dispute 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. Yes When the circumstances change after the initial filing or if new facts become available 15. Yes When the circumstances change after the initial filing or if new facts become available 16. See no reason to permit transfer from one provider to another unless the initial provider ceases providing services 17. Yes 18. No opinion 19. No opinion 20. Yes Unless a party requests confidentiality 21. Unless one of the parties requests confidentiality; before the decision. 22. Yes Unless a party requests confidentiality 23. In the public domain, unless one of the parties requests confidentiality 24. No, unless circimstances change or new facts become known 25. No 26. No Those issues should be decided by courts. 27. Yes 28. Only persuasive value 29. No 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. No, but panelists shuould not decide disputes in which the panelist represents a party 36. No, but a member of the firm should not be a panelist in a dispute in which his/her firm represents a party 37. No opinion 38. No opinion 39. No 40. No 41. The UDRP should include a non-exclusive list. 42. No Proof of bad faith may required more evidence than the 43. No opinion 44. yes 45. 46. yes 47. Yes Partial refund; the provider should be able to cover its costs 48. Yes Partial refund; the provider should be able to cover its costs 49. No 50. No opinion 51. No opinion 52. No opinion 53. N/ 54. 55. 56. ##41########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 2 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes. I feel the UDRP process is clear and user-friendly. 5. I feel the panelists did an excellent job, being both impartial and professional in their handling of the case. 6. No. 7. N/A 8. No. 9. N/A 10. No. I found the results fair and satisfactory. 11. None. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : , 1 14. Yes. It is often the case that the Respondent will introduce new issues or false information and the Complainant should have an opportunity to address it. 15. No. I feel that the Respondents have an adequate chance to express their claim. If they have a legitimate interest in the domain name, then they have more than adequate opportunity to state so in their response. 16. No comment. 17. Yes. 18. No. 19. It woud be helpful depending on which Supplemental Rules were implemented. 20. Yes. They should be a matter of public record. 21. After decision is rendered. 22. Yes. It would be very helpful for both Complainants and Respondents. 23. Public Domain. 24. Yes, under circumstances where the Complainant can prove that there is a legitmate need for such a re-file (i.e. lost the case on a technicality but clear on the merits they should have won) 25. No. Parties should be encouraged to work things out through arbitration and avoid the UDRP process when possible. 26. No. 27. Yes. 28. Yes. 29. No. 30. 31. 32. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. Only in circumstances where there has been proven wrong-doing of some kind. 36. No. Law firms are huge bodies and often represent hundreds of potentially conflicting interests. Panelists are bound by their duty to be fair and impartial. 37. Yes. 38. N/A 39. No. 40. No. 41. It should include ANY confusingly similar domain name to a trademark or service mark, not just physical appearance. 42. No. Only one or the other. In cases where the Respondent has a legitimate inter 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##42########################### 1. Complainant Counsel for Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No 7. Yes 8. No 9. 10. No 11. Yes. The registrar Joker.com was very difficult to deal with, and it took nearly 4 months from the transfer order to actually get the domain name transferred. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, Legal fees to prepare extensive complaint 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. Yes, to ensure accuracy of allegations (e.g., if new evidence arises that strengthens the case) 15. Yes, if new evidence arises to strengthen their defenses 16. None- prevent forum shopping 17. Yes 18. No 19. Yes - prevent forum shopping 20. Yes - good precedential value and research tool 21. Mandatory 22. Yes - good precedential value and research tool 23. public domain, should be treated like judicial opinions in court 24. Yes, if substantial and compelling evidence arises to prove the case 25. No - this encourages parties to settle the matter 26. Trademark defenses should apply 27. No, so long as there's new evidence 28. Yes - clarifies the law and makes it predictable 29. No - can always do this in a court of law 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. No, so long as representation is in a different Provider 36. No 37. Yes - not a big concern 38. 39. No 40. No 41. Yes - list should be similar to trademark analysis (sight, sound, commercial impression, etc) 42. No - one of these factors should suffice 43. should be used to demonstrative constructive notice to cybersquatter (pending applications are public record) 44. Yes 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. No 50. No 51. 52. Yes 53. Yes 54. No 55. No 56. The UDRP excels in offering a relatively inexpensive and efficient way to prevent cybersquatting and trademark infringement ##43########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. yes 5. no 6. no 7. I am counsel 8. no 9. 10. yes. I thought the decision was not based on sound law concerning disclaimers 11. no 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 1 14. yes. respondents will often make allegations that need to be refuted 15. no, they already had a chance to respond to the allegations 16. none 17. no 18. no 19. yes 20. yes. it will help others file/respond to complaints 21. 22. yes it will make for a more informed process all around 23. public domain 24. only if the relevant facts cahnge 25. no 26. no 27. no 28. yes 29. no, it will make it too cumbersome a process 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. yes, when there is a conflict in the traditional sense 36. yes 37. yes 38. 39. yes. make the "fair use" and "legitimate purpose" provisions clearer 40. yes (and the sound) 41. 42. just use since that is what really matters (use can be in the form of offering to sell) 43. when coupled with actual use 44. yes 45. 46. yes 47. yes 48. yes 49. no 50. no 51. no 52. yes 53. yes 54. no 55. yes Chile, Brazil (extremely SLOW) 56. ##44########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 4, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 5 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 2, Fees 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No 7. Yes (I am in-house counsel to corporate client which was Complainant) 8. No 9. N/A 10. No (only UDRP decision in which client involved had favorable outcome) 11. Yes! It was very difficult dealing with Network Solutions regarding the transfer. It is nearly impossible to reach anyone at NSI, and it was totally unclear what actions we needed to take in order to get the domain transferred. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, N/A 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. Yes, for example to present evidence of further actions by Respondent that indicate bad faith (such as attempting to transfer domain or registering additional infringing domain names) 15. Yes, but only to respond to an amended complaint 16. I can't see why this should be allowed 17. Yes 18. Not aware of any 19. No -- providers should be able to distinguish themselves from one another, offer some choices in procedure/policy 20. Yes 21. Should only be after decision is rendered 22. Yes, they have persuasive value, even if not precedential binding effect 23. Public domain -- UDRP is a de facto court system for domain names 24. Yes, e.g., in order to argue error in prior decision and/or present new facts 25. No 26. No, these types of issues are dealt with adequately under the current scheme 27. Yes, but see 25 28. No, but should be able to be cited for persuasive authority 29. No, refiling in UDRP and filing in court offer sufficient appellate options 30. 31. 32. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. No 36. No 37. No opinion 38. No opinion 39. There is some inconsistency but not a major problem (same is true of courts); no need to make structural changes 40. Don't understand the question 41. See 40 42. No -- registration in bad faith should be sufficient b/c it deprives trademark owner of ability to use trademark on the Internet 43. Should be sufficient in the narrow situation where facts suggest that respondent knew about application and registered name in bad faith 44. They are reasonable 45. N/A 46. They are reasonable 47. Partial refund seems fair 48. No 49. Absolutely NOT -- would be a waste of time; most complainants try to settle before filing arbitration complaint 50. Perhaps a few narrow issues, such as framing another's Web site 51. No opinion 52. Yes -- UDRP was meant to be streamlined, simplified process, and uniformity would greatly help those goals and create consistent expectations for all domain name registrants 53. Yes, because same policies should apply across the board to all TLDs 54. No opinion 55. No 56. Generally, it is a very good process -- I favor applying UDRP to all TLDs ##45########################### 1. Other attorney representing clients in UDRP cases 2. Cost of Proceedings : 3 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 6 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 4 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. yes, at least the way it was supposed to work 5. No. The panelists clearly brought with them strong individual biases. I think this is reflected in the fact that in one case I handled the panelists completely ignored several prior WIPO decisions on all fours with our case because he, she or they apparently didn't like the way those cases were resolved. Prior decisions apparently have no precedential value, leaving the ultimate resolutions to the whims of the arbitrators and depriving participants of any ability to predict the outcome and act accordingly.. Frankly, a very disappointing resolution process. 6. no 7. I was counsel 8. no 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 6 Language : 1 Other : 5, Please see my response to question No. 5. 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Only in event respondent raises new issues. 15. 16. 17. 18. Some restrictions on arbitrator's unfettered discretion, such as more defined rules, which would provide predictability and some level of legitimacy. 19. Yes. 20. Yes. 21. 22. Yes. Again, see above comments. 23. Definitely should be public domain. Public needs transparency and, hopefully, the ability to determine future behaviour based on predictable resolutions of disputes. 24. 25. 26. 27. Not until there is consistency among the arbitrators. 28. Please see above. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##46########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. Yes. Using WIPO, the forms were available to simply duplicate and revise per the particular facts. The UDRP and Supp. Rules were very clear. 5. Yes. By virtue of their relationship with WIPO. 6. 7. Yes. I was representing a client who relied on us to inform them of this available dispute resolution tool and complete the procedure quickly and correctly.. 8. No. 9. n/a 10. No. Each case has resulted in a favorable decision for our clients. 11. The transfer proceedings could have been smoother, but this is a Registrar issue. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 4 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Complainants should be allowed to amend their complaints once, in order to comply with outstanding issues identified by the Provider. This, in the event an error is made inadvertently. 15. Same as #14 16. Under no circumstances. This process would defeat the primary advantage of the proceedings, which is the quick turnaround time for decisiions. Transfer may enable manipulation o f the process 17. Yes. 18. No. 19. Yes. Everyone should be "playing by the same rules" 20. Yes. Domain name information is already readily available. These proceedings should be as accessible as other administrative proceedings, e.g. before the USPTO. 21. After the decision is rendered. 22. Yes. Online access would be great. Could be used for guidance in filing a particular claim under particular circumstances. 23. Decisions should be in the public domain. See #20. 24. No. Again, this would defeat the advantages of the process. Quick and definitive answers. 25. No. The parties should be able to settle at any time. 26. No. Again, this looks too much like the court process. This would defeat the primary advantage of the UDRP - quick and definitive answers. 27. No. Each case should stand on its own merits and be proven independent of any other proceeding. 28. No. Each case will be extremely fact specific. Complainants should not have to be concerned with precedent in preparing their particular case. 29. No. If one party is not happy with the outcome, the traditional forms of recourse are available. Appeals would delay the process ad defeat the primary advantages of the UCDRP 30. 31. 32. 33. n/a 34. n/a 35. No. 36. No. 37. Not really. The "no legitimate interest" requirement will be challenging to meet in these circumstances. 38. Amend the Rules accordingly. 39. No. 40. No. Should include phonetic equivalents, as well. 41. Yes. Either the Polaroid or DuPont factors. 42. No. Registration may not have been in bad faith, but once learning of the advantages of stealing one's trademark, the registration may be used in bad faith. This situation should be addressed by the UDRP 43. Under all circumstances. A prior pending application is enough to bar a subsequent user from registration before the PTO, it should be enough to bar subsequent domain name registrant from adopting the mark in bad faith. 44. Yes. It is affordable and reasonable. 45. 46. n/a/ 47. No. 48. No. 49. No. This will defeat the quick turnaround, which is one of the best features of the UDRP. 50. No. 51. n/a/ 52. Yes. 53. Yes. 54. No. 55. No. 56. ##47########################### 1. Other attorney representing complainants 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 3 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No 7. N/A 8. Yes, it is very difficult to search current "WHOIS" services to identify other domain names owned by a particular respondent so as to prove a pattern of domain name cybersuqatting. 9. 10. No 11. No 12. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 5 Other : 1, Complicated issues involved 13. Complainant : 2 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 4 Other : , 1 14. Yes, if new evidence is discoved that could not reasonably be discovered prior to filing the complaint. 15. Yes, if new evidence is discoved that could not reasonably be discovered prior to filing the response.. 16. None. 17. Yes. 18. 19. Yes. 20. Yes. 21. After the decision is rendered. 22. Yes so that decisions could be adequately searched. 23. Public domain. 24. No. 25. Yes, they should forfeit any fees paid. 26. Yes but only if the complainant is given an opportunity to respond to the affirmative defense. 27. Yes. 28. Yes, to establish a uniform and coherent legal structure. 29. NO. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. No but any proceeding in which they represent a party should be before panelists that they have never worked on a panel with. 36. No. 37. No, no real standards for determining what constitites reverse doman name hijacking 38. Establish clear standards so that complainants know in advance 39. Yes, provide for better searching of panelist decisions and rely of past precedent 40. Yes. 41. 42. No, registration without any use could still constitute bad faith 43. None. 44. Yes. 45. 46. They are not paid enough to devote the required time. 47. Yes, full. 48. Yes, if the panelists have not done any work on the matter. 49. No. 50. No. 51. No. 52. Yes. 53. Yes. 54. 55. 56. ##48########################### 1. Constituency Member IPC 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 4, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 2 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 6, 4. yes 5. yes. addressed arguments for both parties even though respondent did not file a response. 6. no. 7. n/a 8. yes- obtaining WHOIS data was difficult because of limits on record retrieval and accuracy of WHOIS data 9. n/a 10. no. decisions to date have been in our favor. 11. YES. CORE, the registrar in this case, was persuaded to stop the transfer by the Complainant filing a complaint in a court without jurisdiction under the UDRP. Took us 2 months to perduade CORE to implement the decision; the complaint is still pending. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 6 Other : 6, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 5 14. yes. With no discovery, evidence is difficult to come by. If respondent raises new issues or provides new evidence, Complainant should have a short period (20 days?) for response. 15. Yes. Short time frame to allow rebut of additional/new evidence. Why? They stand to lose their domain. Should be awarded every opportunity to fight for it- but shouldn't slow the process unduly. 16. No transfer should be allowed except where there is a clear abuse of the process by the panelist; or demonstrated bias. Then, no provider change; only panelist change. 17. 18. 19. 20. YES. To improve the quality of submissions to the Panelists and to allow for the development of a body of precedent. 21. 22. YES. See #20. 23. public domain. 24. Yes. 25. no. 26. 27. 28. yes- promotes consistency; gives UDRP weight and credibility. 29. no. there will always be recourse in the courts. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. yes. if there is a conflict of interest. 36. yes. if there is a conflict of interest. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. no. too many warehouses of domains out there. 43. no- it's evidence, it's not proof. Use should be a requirement. 44. No- they seem high, by about 50%. 45. 50% discount. 46. it's a prestigious position- seem 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##49########################### 1. Attorney for complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes. The Rules are clear and well written 5. Yes. Followed earlier decisions and well reasoned 6. No 7. N.A. 8. No 9. N.A. 10. No need to do so 11. Yes. Registrars refused to transfer. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, Respondent threatened to go to court if adverse UDRP ruling and court with jurisdiction would not enforce it. 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 3 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 4 Other : , 1 14. No. Would slow up process. 15. No. Would slow up process. 16. No. 17. Yes. Adequate notice is provided. 18. All Supplemental Rules should provide that the complaint and decision be in complainant's language even if another language is specified as well. 19. Yes, for consistency and uniformity. 20. Yes, as is true with most court proceedings. 21. Mandatory. 22. Yes. Precedents should be readily available to everyone. 23. Yes, similar to court decisions. 24. Only if there is a demonstrable change in circumstances. 25. No reason for such a limit. 26. Yes, all of the above. Makes for a fairer system. As a caveat, the complainant should be able to respond to any such defense. 27. Yes, unless there ia a demonstrable change in circumstances. 28. Yes. Makes for better and fairer system. 29. Yes, if the appeal process is an expeditious one. 30. Three panelists seems right with a centralized institution and costs borne by the losing party. 31. High level of deference. 32. Automatic with costs borne by the losing party. 33. N.A. 34. N.A. 35. Yes. System appears more fair. 36. Yes. System appears more fair. 37. As of now it appears to be adequately dealt with. 38. N.A. 39. There appears to be a modest inconsistency problem. Provide for appeals and make all decisions readily and publicly available. 40. Yes. 41. N.A. 42. No, one or the other should be sufficient. Should not protect a respondent's doing either one. 43. If the mark has been used enough to constitute trademark use. 44. Yes. 45. N.A. 46. Yes. 47. Yes, full refund. 48. No. 49. No. Most of the time discussions already will have occured. 50. No. 51. No. Different problem. 52. Yes. Makes for better and fairer system. 53. N.A. 54. Arbitration but UDRP is close to that. 55. No. 56. Big problem. In many instances, it appears that a UDRP ruling of bad faith registration and use would not be upheld under the trademark laws of the particular country which has jurisdiction of the appeal. ##50########################### 1. Other Attorney 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Yes 15. Yes 16. 17. 18. 19. Yes 20. Yes 21. mandatory 22. Yes. There is no reason why this should not be done. 23. Public domain. 24. No. Why should a complainant keep getting chances to get lucky? 25. No 26. Yes 27. yes 28. no, because the quality of the decisions so far is spotty at best 29. yes 30. appellant should pay 31. same as a US appeals court 32. yes 33. 34. 35. absolutely 36. yes 37. somewhat 38. 39. yes 40. 41. 42. no 43. 44. no 45. lowered 46. 47. yes 48. yes, partial 49. no 50. no 51. no 52. yes 53. 54. no 55. no 56. ##51########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 5 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. Yes, except when we needed to submit an Amended Complaint 5. Complaint pending, so I cannot yet say. 6. I spoke with the provider re: the Amended Complaint and had no difficulties. 7. I am counsel for my corporation. 8. Only insofar as the Respondent quickly moved to a different registrar following the filing of my Complaint. 9. N/A 10. N/A 11. N/A 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 1 14. Yes. For instance, if the respondent has moved to another registrar, the complainant should be able to so state to the provider to make the latter's task easier. 15. Yes, but only if the facts change significantly such that it would be unfair to preclude an amendment. (I should not think this would be the case often.,) 16. None. 17. Yes, they are adequate. 18. Don't know. 19. Yes. Efficiency! 20. yes, they should. It sends a message to cybersquatters. 21. I think you mean question 20 . I believe it should be public record. 22. Yes. Again, it is efficient and why should this be a secret?? 23. Public Domain. I think this is obvious - consider the purpose of the decision and query why it should be proprietary! 24. No. 25. No limits. 26. Yes - same as with trademark infringement which includes all of the above. 27. Yes. 28. Yes. 29. No. It would go on forever! 30. 31. 32. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. Yes, if they have an association with any of the parties. 36. Yes - potential prejudice. 37. Don't know. 38. 39. Don't know. 40. No. 41. Yes - factors such as those used in connection with proving trademark infringement. 42. No - bad faith registration is sufficient to damage the complainant and should be sufficient basis for relief. 43. It should be. The pending app constitutes notice of intent to use and should preclude a third party from adopting the mark. 44. yes. 45. 46. Yes. 47. No. 48. No. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##52########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 4 Other : 3, Relaxed evidentiary standards 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 5 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 6, 4. Yes; rules are easily accessible and understandable 5. As a group, yes; however, the preconceptions of certain panelists sometimes clouds their judgment 6. No 7. n/a 8. No 9. Cost and likelihood of success 10. No 11. No 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 5 Other : 1, Require different legal standard or remedies 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 5 14. Yes; to briefly respond to Respondent's arguments and/or if new facts come to light 15. No; Respondents already have a chance to respond to every point raised by the Complainant and even if Complainant is given an opportunity for rebuttal, Complainant will not raise new issues but only respond to those issues raised by Respondent 16. None 17. Yes 18. No 19. No; each provider, like individual courts, should be able to set its own local rules 20. Yes; it is highly unlikely that they contain any confidential information and given the brevity of some decisions, it is impossible to understand the decision without reference to the complaint and response 21. If you mean question 20; copies should be made accessible at the time the decision is rendered 22. An emphatic YES! Furthermore, the databases for searching the decisions should be made much more robust, like LEXIS or WESTLAW in the U.S. 23. Public domain; would allow professional database companies like LEXIS and WESTLAW in each country to index the decisions in their local languages removing this burden from the Providers, who are unlikely to invest the time or money necessary. 24. Yes; if there was a fatal defect in the complaint and the respondent failed to respond but prevailed. 25. No; the proceedings have no true precedential value or preclusive effects, so why lock the Compainant into a fight it no longer wishes to pursue? Of course, 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##53########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 4, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 6, 4. While the steps for filing are revealed in the Rules and Supplemental Rules, they are not presented as clearly as they might be. I've never had a problem as Complainant, but I've seen filing problems in proceedings in which I've represented or advised Respondents. 5. Yes. I just received a favorable ruling for Respondent by a unanimous three-member panel, including a member selected by Complainant. 6. No. 7. I have been counsel for complainnants and respondents. 8. No. 9. 10. No. I've been fortunate to have prevailed in each proceeding. 11. The process is unnecessarily cumbersome, particularly as implemented by Network Solutions. Transfers take too long and NSI puts up needless barriers, unless of course, you pay for the premium service. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 5 14. It depends. Amendment should be allowed to add additional "causes of action," i.e. additional domain names registered by Respondent, or to cure a simple omission, but not as a second bite at the same apple following receipt the Response. If Complainant learns of additional domain names to be put in issue, especially if those registrations were made by Respondent in response to the initial Complaint, it would be unfair to Complainant to deny an Amended Complaint. Both fairness and judicial economy require that Complainant be allowed to amend. What purpose would be served by two successive panels rather than a single panel, other than to heap unrecoverable costs on Complainant, to the benefit of the Provider and the joy of the Respondent? 15. As for Complainant, Respondent should be granted an opportunity to cure a simple omission in the Response. The "second bite" issue doesn't arise because the Response is the last pleading. 16. By stipulation of the 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##54########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 3 Provider's supplemental rules : 5 Experience of Panelists : 4 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 1, Prior decisions 4. yes 5. some were; some were not because of quality of opinions 6. no 7. I am counsel 8. no 9. n/a 10. no. not worth the time/expense 11. no, other than some delay 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, only factor - bad law 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. before the answer is filed and time to answer should extend 15. no; additional filing is permitted by either party 16. should not 17. yes 18. 19. yes; would make it easier for everyone to udnerstand and promote uniform application of the rules 20. yes; the only precedent available 21. this survey is too long and I have not time to complete it; sorry 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##55########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 4, 3. Provider reputation : 3 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 6, 4. Yes. 5. Yes. 6. No. 7. Yes. 8. No. 9. 10. No. We have won all decisions. 11. No. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 2 Respondent : 3 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 4 Other : , 5 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Yes. Ease of access. 23. They should be treated as court decisions, so that they may be quoted with precedential value. 24. No, except via an appeal process. 25. 26. 27. Yes, if the same domain names and same parties only. Otherwise, different case and set of circumstances. 28. Yes. It is necessary, in order for previous decisions to have credibility with all panels. 29. Yes. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Yes. 35. Yes. It is too easy for such panelists to influence the other panelists they appear before. 36. No, but it should be clear that the panelist has a Chinese Wall around him or her before the firm participates. 37. 38. 39. Yes. Precedential value of decisions would help. 40. No. 41. Sound alikes and misspellings should be included. 42. No. Many domains are registered in bad faith, but there is little that can be done if they are not "used". It would be helpful to take action against parties that register in bad faith alone, since "use" is stretched anyway, to include the attempted sale of a domain name. Use should not mean activation of a website. 43. If the application is pending before the registration of the disputed domain name. 44. Yes. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. No. This would destroy the quick nature of the proceedings. Typically, amicable solutions have been attempted before one files an ICANN Complaint. 50. No. 51. 52. Yes. 53. Yes. Usually the same arguments will apply, and this will save time and legal costs if all are combined in one action. 54. No. 55. No. 56. ##56########################### 1. representative of complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. yes 5. Decision was well written and seemed to grasp the conflicting contentions 6. no 7. I was counsel 8. no 9. n/a 10. no 11. no 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, n/a 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 1 14. Yes, if additional probative evidence becomes available after complaint filed 15. yes, if exculpatory evodemce becp,es available after the response is filed. 16. mutual agreement only 17. yes 18. no 19. yes 20. yes. Should be public record. Use to improve quality of subsequent proceedings 21. This question doesn't seem related to 19. 22. yes. Some are. Useful precedent value. 23. Public domain. This is a quasi judicial process and should be open to avoid appearance of unfairness or bias. 24. If violations of Lanham Act are involved, same remedy might be available in U.S. Federal litigation. 25. No, unless respondent can show malicious prosecution and then respondent should be entitled to some recompense. 26. Affirmative defenses to the extent that their use might prevent miscarriage of justice. 27. Yes 28. If a decision is well reasoned and supported in the law, it would make for uniform applicability of the laws and make the process more predictable 29. There is. Recourse to the courts is possible. 30. I don't think that appeals should be handled outside of the courts. 31. review should be limited to whether decision is well founded on evidence and law. 32. no 33. n/a 34. N/A 35. yes. judges should not be advocates. 36. yes. avoid even appearance of impropriety 37. don't know 38. n/a 39. not yet 40. no 41. no. standard is and should be likelihood of confusion, deception or mistake 42. no. either should suffice 43. extensive use of mark prior to application for registration. Would be sufficient under section 43a 44. don't know 45. n/a 46. probably consitent with other neutrals in ADR 47. full 48. substantial - since panel not utilized. 49. no. it is assumed that reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute were made before filing and paying the fee. 50. Situations where domain owner properly belongs to the complainant on other compelling grounds 51. no. this is not litigation. 52. no opinion 53. 54. no 55. no 56. ##57########################### 1. Panelist WIPO, E Resolution, NAF 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, Advantage of beneficial bad faith test 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 2 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 2 Other : 1, Familiarity with WIPO 4. yes 5. yes 6. no 7. I was Counsel 8. no 9. not applicable 10. no, have always won 11. no 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 6 Language : 6 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Supplement if Respondent accuses them of bad faith and Complainant has evidence to the contrary and If new and relevant evidence comes to light which could not have been obtaned previously 15. If new and relevant evidence comes to light which could not have been obtaned previously 16. none not necesaary 17. yes 18. 19. Yes it would be easier for everyone and save inconsistencies 20. yes 21. always 22. yes 23. public domain 24. If important new evidence previously unavailable comes to light 25. If withdraws after Respondent has paid in a 3 party panel situation and too late for a refund should reimburse respondent 26. NO better to leave to Panel's Discretion 27. no 28. only if an appeal body is established and starts making decisions 29. maybe depends on rules 30. three panellists, rules should be uniform but different providers ok, appealing party should bear costs 31. should consider but be given freedom to decide issue again as all on documents 32. yes 33. well maybe not as the providers are often late 34. yes, no should be centralized and searchability accessibility maximised 35. only if direct conflict of interest 36. no, you would have few panellists left!! 37. yes 38. 39. yes, consultation should identify difficult areas e.g. confusing similarity in FUCKNETSCAPE type of cases and decide on a policy, personally I think marks plus added matter should be regarded as confusingly similar 40. no phonetic and conceptual similarity also important 41. yes, especially on FUCK NETSCAPE type cases, I thikn marks plus added matter should be regarded as confusingly similar 42. no use of a 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##58########################### 1. Other Internet domain owner 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. No. As they initiated the complaint, they should get it right first time round 15. As the burdon of proof is on the Respondent (i.e. Guilty until proven innocent) yes, they should have this ability 16. If both agree that the provider is incompetent w.r.t. the case 17. No. People can take vacations or be away from t