##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of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, Because US Trademark law superceded UDRP, we opted to file in Federal court instead 13.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 the office. Physical delivery of notice must be made - obviously this means that the WHOIS database must have 'clean' information in it 18. No 19. Yes 20. Yes. Most definitely. It would show that the UDRP was being used and applied correctly 21. Mandatory 22. Don't care. However they must be accessble 23. Yes. They should not be the intellectual property of the providers - the providers are providing a service to the complainant and respondent and are creating any more value 24. No. They had their chance to complain, and if they messed it up, the respondant shouldn't be penalized by having to go through the process again 25. If the complainant withdraws, they should be blocked from any future action over the domain 26. Freedom of speech really sums it up. i.e. If someone decides to setup a complaint site about a product, person or corporation they should be allowed to. 27. No. Cases should be looked at in the light of evidence presented. The UDRP is a set of rules, not an instrument to create case law 28. No. As before, the UDRP is a set of rules, not case law 29. Yes. Only for the respondent. 30. 3 panalists and the complainant should be responsible for 100% of the cost if the respondant is found innocent, 75% otherwise 31. If there are issues with the findings from the initial panel (i.e. UDRP has not been implemented properly), none - but theappellate panel shouldn't make the same mistakes 32. No. The respondant has to be willing to appeal 33. Not applicable 34. Not applicable 35. If they have dealt with cases about the domain before or their law firm has 36. Only where the panelists law firms are representing either the complainant or the respondant 37. Nope. The current system has failed to protect the individual from the corporate law firms 38. No comment 39. No. The UDRP doesn't need to be changed, however an oversight committee should be able to direct where a case decision has obviously failed to follow UDRP rules - complaints in the press are usually a good indication where this has happened 40. Only to the physical appearance - actually if it's a trademark issue, the complainant should have defended their rights in the appropriate court... 41. It would be useful. If the respondant is not following the fair use parameters allowed under US law, then that counts against them 42. Both have to apply. It could be that person a registered the domain in bad faith by the current owner, person b is running a complaint site. Person b must not suffer because of person a's actions 43. NO!!! The UDRP complaint should be on hold until the court has decided for the respondant or the complainant 44. Seem ok 45. 46. Seem ok 47. Yes! Full refund - the respondent shouldn't suffer if the complainant doesn't want to continue the case - this is what normally happens in UK cases 48. Nope. The complainant used UDRP to save legal costs and knew that at the start, so no 49. Yes. And the discussions should be public 50. No. 51. Not yet. Internet user's faith in the UDRP has to be restored before this 52. Absolutely now. Individual countries should be allowed to 'do their own thing' as they do at the moment - the legal system in a particular country may enforce different systems for protecting names etc, the UDRP shouldn't infect (or affect!) these soverign rights 53. 54. Yes. They're expensive and go on for a lot longer(!) 55. The Nominet one in the UK works fine 56. UDRP is not implemented properly by a number of the panelists. Thus needs to be remedied ##59########################### 1. Constituency Member INTA 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 : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes, the rules are fairly clear. 5. We received favorable decisions each time and (obviously) felt the decisions were correct. 6. no 7. yes 8. no 9. N/A 10. No, because they have been decided in our favor 11. No, it takes a little while; but it seemed to work out okay. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 4 Language : 5 Other : 1, We decided that the domain name wasn't worth it. Did not pursue by other means either. 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 3 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 4 Other : , 1 14. Yes, if additional pertinent information comes to light once the complaint has been filed (particularly if it is learned as a result of the filing.) 15. Yes, if additional pertinent information comes to light once the response has been filed (particularly if an amended Complaint is filed.) 16. Can't think why that would be necessary. 17. They should be adequate if domain name registrants provide accurate and reliable contact information. 18. 19. not necessarily 20. yes, because it would allow complainants to see if a particular cybersquatter has engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting. 21. After decision. 22. Yes, it would be helpful for legal research purposes 23. Public domain, citable as precedent 24. Not unless it is under some standard like "abuse of discretion" 25. No, usually that means settlement, which is good. 26. The current procedure seems to be adequate. Laches should not be used because when famous trademarks are involved, there generally are hundreds or thousands of domain names in the hands of third parties; but the intellectual property owner only goes after those that are most egregious. If a domain name has been owned for a long time but inactive, you can see why the TM owner might wait until there is a web site attached before taking action. 27. Yes, unless see 24. 28. Yes. 29. Not unless see 24. 30. Costs would be born by the party appe 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. ##60########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, Criteria for determining infringement 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. Yes 8. No 9. 10. No - Decisions have been in our favor 11. The registrars are sometimes slow 12. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 5 Other : 1, legal strength of case 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 1 14. Yes - changed factual circumstances 15. Yes - same 16. Thars depends on the selection process employed 17. Yes 18. no 19. Yes - to discourage forum shopping 20. Yes, subject to seal being avaialble under appropriate circumstances. As a brand owner, information about potential infringements encountered by othe brand owners is invaluable. 21. 22. Yes - To help ensure consistency 23. Public domain if they are to function as precedent in other UDRP proceedings 24. Yes - new material evidence 25. Don't have a position at this time 26. Possibly - in the nature of those mentioned 27. Possibly 28. Tough question. Precedential value is in many ways desirable, but the varied quality of UDRP decisions undermines that value. 29. Don;t have a position at this time 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Possibly from representation before panelists with whom they have jointly served 36. no 37. Don't have a position at this time 38. 39. Probably - Don't have a suggestion for correction at this time 40. No - sound, meaning etc shoudl be considered 41. Yes, see q 40 42. Don't have a position at this time 43. Possibly a use-based application in those countries having a common law rghts-based system of registration and the requirement that the applicant execute an oath as to the veracity of the statements in the application 44. Seem to be 45. 46. Don't know 47. No 48. Yes - full 49. Probably not, but if anyhting a very short one, e.g., 10 days 50. No 51. Don't know 52. Yes - It would dramtically simplify enforcement 53. Yes - judicial economy 54. 55. no 56. ##61########################### 1. Other I hold generic and geo names for development 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 : 1 Language : 6 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 5 14. No. They have an unlimited amount of time to collect facts and statements. 15. Yes. When the respondent is requested to present additional information new facts should be allowed to amend the response given. 16. None if the respondent selects the Provider... stop the forum shopping 17. No. 20 days does not allow for some communications to be completed.. Should have a public notice requirment! 18. All Providers should use one set of standard rules.... No Supplemental Rules allowed... 19. Yes... They shold be part of the overall rules... everyone play from the same rule book with the Respondent selecting the Provider! 20. Yes. To have an open forum and remove all special and sweet deals. 21. mandatory .. no exceptions 22. Yes. To maintain the credibility of the process. 23. Public Domain. These decisions are not "intellectual property" of any party. They have an effect on all domain owners. 24. Yes. But only be allowed to present facts of events that occur after the initial UDRP decision. 25. Yes. No case should be allowed to be withdrawn and resubmitted anew. 26. Yes. generic terms. geographic locations. untrademarkable name for the current use. 27. Yes. Only allow facts of new events occuring after initial UDRP. 28. No. The cases are so scattered in value that anyone can find a conflict. 29. Yes. Were the panel relied on an untrue fact that made the case. 30. The appeal should be allowed as a separate case with a separate panel separate provider and financed by the appealling party. 31. None... Totally separate... on the merits of the case. 32. No. Only in a case of untrue facts being used in the initial case. 33. 34. 35. No. Either party may have any panelist represent them. 36. Yes. It would be impossible to determine conflicts of interest. 37. No. I believe that any finding of "reverse domain name hijacking" should carry a fine or some payment to the respondent for the cost pain and trouble. 38. Any party found to be RDNH should pay a fee to the respondent equal to twice his actual cost to defend his domain. 39. Have a peer review of each decision before it was final and require each panelist to review one case for each case taken. 40. yes. 41. 42. yes. Bad faith requires both the use and registration. 43. None. A pending trademark may not be accepted and that would allow a bad faith application for trademarks to make unfair UDRP cases. 44. No. I think the fees sould be much higher and provide a review by peers. 45. They should be twice the amounts. 46. Yes 47. Yes. Full refund. The complainant should pay all fees. 48. No. 49. Yes. This would be very helpful and resolve 90% of the disputes. Also the use of a domain can be shared! 50. No. 51. No. 52. No. The ccTLD should be allowed to formulate any dispute system for each country. 53. 54. no 55. 56. The UDRP should require the complainant to contact the respondant and give a notice of trademark infringment. The UDRP should only deal with trademark infringment issues. ##62########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 4, 3. Provider reputation : 2 Provider's supplemental rules : 5 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 6, 4. yes, very - WIPO in particular has sample complaint, etc. Very clear process and rules 5. yes - all had solid background in trademark law 6. no 7. yes 8. Whois limitations made it difficult to find out whether whether respondent had engaged in pattern of registering infringing domain names 9. 10. no - we have won all our cases at the UDRP level 11. on one occasion, Tucows failed to implement the order at the proper time. We had to contact Tucows' legal department directly. Once we did, they did implement the order relatively quickly, but it appeared to us that the UDRP order never got to the right place within Tucows and would have been forever lost if we had not followd up directly. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 4 Other : 6, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 5 14. Yes, in the event new facts or evidence (including facts or evidence that existed but couldn't reasonably have been discovered) comes to light. 15. Yes, in the event new facts or evidence (including facts or evicence that existed but couldn't reasonably have been discovered) comes to light. 16. I don't see why this would ever be necessary. 17. Yes - since the notice is given by email, these provisions are adequate. Email is often the only reliable way to reach the respondents, and requiring anything beyond that would be superfluous and would only generate extra time/cost. 18. No 19. This would be nice, but I don't think it is necessary - the system is working fine as it is. 20. Yes - helps assess performance of the Provider, helps show patterns of conduct by the Respondent 21. After decision is rendered 22. Sure - most convenient for research. 23. Public domain - this is consistent with the practice of the courts, at least in the US - making them IP could cause problems for ability to use them in future proceedings, appeals, commentary%2 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. ##63########################### 1. Other attorney for complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 4, 3. Provider reputation : 3 Provider's supplemental rules : 2 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 5 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 6, 4. Yes 5. No. The opinion, after laying out the facts, was nothing short of lawless! 6. None. 7. N/A 8. none 9. N/A 10. No. Since it is not binding, my client can sue in Federal court for infringement 11. N/A 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 : 4 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 2 14. Yes. If procedural defects appear or if the panel is of the opinion that there was insufficient proof to sustain the count. 15. Yes. All facts should be before the panel. 16. No opinion. 17. Yes. 18. No opinion. 19. Yes. The whole idea is to create a uniform system. 20. Yes. 21. Mandatory; after soliciting views and reaching a consensus. 22. Yes. 23. Public domain. 24. Yes; just like jmol. 25. No. 26. Apparently they already do. 27. Not necessarily. 28. They shouldn't; unless the facts and law are exactly the same. 29. No. Go to court if you think you are right. 30. N/A 31. None. 32. N/A 33. N.A 34. N/A 35. No comment. 36. No comment 37. No. It should not be an issue in this summary procedure, because there is no way to adequately explore the issue. 38. It should not be in issue. 39. Peer review and quality control. 40. Sight, sound and meaning. 41. Leave it to existing TM law. 42. No; not both 43. It shouldn't be. 44. Yes. 45. N/A 46. Yes. 47. No. 48. Yes. 49. No. 50. No. 51. No. 52. No comment. 53. N/A 54. No. 55. Just negotiation and settlement contracts. 56. At the very least a party dissatisfied with a decision shoul be able to file reasons for dissatisfaction with the provider for quality control review. Even if there is an additional fee required. ##64########################### 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 : 2 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. no 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 6 Language : 6 Other : 1, respondent owned several names, court action preferred 13. Complainant : 2 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 1 14. only in response to the respondents' answer 15. no 16. tough question; we have been pleased and not seen a need for this 17. yes 18. 19. yes 20. yes 21. at all times as in a court proceeding 22. yes, body of precedent, even if not precedential value in a proceeding 23. public domain 24. no, and if so, there should be a test for exceptional circunstances as to why he gets a second bite at the apple 25. no, except if he withdraws after the response if filed, consider imposing the respondent's costs 26. no, will greatly reduce speed and efficacy of proceedings 27. yes 28. yes 29. no, there is the ability to go to court 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. no, provided not representing parties whose UDRP proceedings have been heard 36. see above answer to 35 37. 38. 39. yes, making prior decisions have precedential value 40. no 41. yes, use tests similar in trademark examination, sight sound and meaning 42. no, because there can be a bad faith registration that prevents the rightful owner from using the name, even if no bad faith use is made 43. difficult question, but I think it should be sufficient, since there are countries in which trademark rights accrue upon use, not registrations. 44. yes 45. 46. yes 47. pro rate refund to take into account if the panel has actually started working on the matter, tie the refund to the point at which the case is dropped 48. see above 49. no, will slow the UDRP down 50. no 51. no 52. yes, but may be difficult to achieve 53. no, in a cc tld, there may be geographical considerations 54. 55. no 56. ##65########################### 1. Other counsel for multiple complainants 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 3 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. yes; the rules are well-written and the notices are clear 5. yes; for the most part, the decisions have been well-reasoned and supported by trademark law 6. not yet, although I have submitted a complaint in Chinese and requested that the proceeding be in English because the infringement is in English even though the registration agreement is in Chinese; it seems that if the infringement is in English, the proceeding should be as well 7. I am counsel 8. no 9. N/A 10. No; I have prevailed in every proceeding but one; the client is still deciding but probably does not want to spend the money to challenge that one 11. No, with the exception of the registrar Joker.com, which makes transfers difficult 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, client wanted immediate injunctive relief or discovery was needed to show bad faith 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : 1 ,ust as a complainant who files suit selects the venue, similarly a complainant filing this proceeding should select his provider 14. yes, under the circumstances in which supplemental pleadings are now allowed(ie for new facts, law, or arguments brought up by the respondent 15. no, unless the complainant files supplemental materials after the answer has been filed or new facts some to light after the response has been filed; this is because the respondent has full opportunity to answer all of the allegations in the complaint the first time he answers 16. there is no reason to inject this level of administrative complication into the system 17. yes; they are clear and concise and sent in manners designed to actually reach the parties 18. no 19. no 20. no 21. n/a 22. yes, for ease of reference 23. they should be in the public domain so that they may be cited as authority or examples 24. no; the intent is to have a sim ple administr 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. ##66########################### 1. Constituency Member 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 2 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 5, 4. YES 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. ##67########################### 1. Other Attorney representing complainants 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 : 2 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. Yes. 5. Yes. They fairly considered all submissions and relied on appropriate relevant law. 6. No. 7. We are counsel representing others. 8. No. 9. NA 10. No. Never needed to because have never lost one. 11. No difficulty, but the time delay could have been shorter. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, Only when more than cancellation or transfer was needed, such as injunctive relief or monetary damages. 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 4 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. Yes, but only to correct errors or to add newly discovered relevant information or evidence. 15. Yes, but only to correct errors or to add newly discovered relevant information or evidence. 16. If respondent can make a persuasive argument that another provider is better suited to fairly handle the complaint, it should be allowed to move for transfer, but complainant should be allowed to respond, and impartial panelist should decide. 17. Adequate. 18. No comments at this time. 19. Yes, to reduce the appearance of any provider being more fair than another, to either party. 20. Yes, just as court documents are. 21. After decision rendered. 22. Yes, for ease of research. 23. Public domain, just like court decisions. 24. Only for a failure or abuse of process; otherwise decisions should be considered final. 25. Complainant should be allowed to withdraw any time before respondent has responded; thereafter, complainant should be allowed to withdraw only with respondent's consent. 26. Acquiescense, genericism, and mere descriptiveness should be affirmative defenses. Laches should not, since bad faith registrations can "sleep" for a long time before discovered. 27. Absolutely. In fact, subsequent proceedings between same parties involving same domain names should not be permitted. Decisions should be final unless a party can show abuse of proces 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. ##68########################### 1. Other lawyer for complainants 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 6 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 1, 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No 7. I act as counsel for complainants 8. No 9. Not applicable 10. Yes. The Panelists ignored our bad faith evidence, and the absence of respondent's good faith evidence. We are confident the U.S. federal court will be much more careful and will find in our favor.be 11. Some registrars, NSI/VeriSign in particular, make it very difficult procedurally to process a transfer. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 6 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. Yes. Particularly if the Complainant has corresponded with Responden before filing a UDRP Complaint, relies on what is stated in the correspondence, and then the Respondent changes his/her/its "story" in the response (although, we have found most Panels willing to accept an additional submission from the Complainant in this circumstance) 15. Yes. Same reason in #14. 16. I don't think that should be permitted. The major benefit of the UDRP procedure is speed. Permitting such a procedure would likely slow the process down to the point where it would probably be just as quick for us to go into U.S. federal court and obtain an injunction. 17. Yes. 18. See my response to #14 and #15 above. 19. Yes. Consistency. 20. Yes. It would be nice to use cybersquatters responses against them as evidence in other UDRP proceedings. 21. Mandatory 22. Yes. To facilitate the purpose of the UDRP, namely to allow quick resolution of cases. If the public and other mark owners are mor easily able to gather information about cybersquatters to use as evidence (and decisions are generally great evidence), it will be easier to file and support UDRP Complaints (and may put psychological pressure on cybersquatters if decisions against them are easily available for the public and press to find.) be 23. Public domain (just like court decisions%2 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. ##69########################### 1. Constituency Member INTA 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 : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 6, 4. yes 5. yes 6. no 7. yes 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 : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 5 14. no, because this is supposed to be an inexpensive quick proceedure, different from court litigation 15. no for the same reasons set forth in answer to # 14 16. none 17. yes 18. no opinion 19. yes to provide uniformity and prevent forum shopping 20. yes to see if a particular party has a tendency to cybersqquat od be too aggressive in filing complaintts 21. 22. yes 23. yes 24. no 25. no 26. yes; laches and acquiesence 27. yes 28. no 29. no 30. 31. 32. 33. n/a 34. n/a 35. yes 36. yes 37. no opinion 38. 39. no opinion 40. no 41. no, use existing tm law 42. yes 43. none 44. no opinion 45. 46. no opinion 47. no, 48. yes, partial 49. no 50. no 51. no opinion 52. no opinnion 53. 54. no 55. no 56. no opinion ##70########################### 1. Complainant Representing Clients in proceedings 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 4 Other : 3, Clear cut cases of cybersquatting (bad faith) 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 6 Experience of Panelists : 4 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 2, Convenience (same time) 4. Very clear 5. Yes, but decisions really depend on their own culture 6. No 7. No 8. The proof of bad faith - especially when you do not receive anything written from the Respondent. 9. 10. We found other ways to recover the domain name 11. No - except it takes a while sometimes. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 6 Other : 1, Difficulties to show the use in bad faith - cybersquatters are more and more sophisticated 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 4 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 1 14. Yes - after a filing, Respondents tend to make up evidences, and Complainant might find out new prooves 15. As I think Complainant should be able to amend their complaint, it makes sense the Respondents to be allowed the same opportunity 16. NO - this is too complicated 17. They are fine 18. No 19. They should be uniform - the contrary leads to some sort of "forum shopping". 20. No, they should not be accessible - 21. 22. Yes, this would be more convenient - Case precedents should not differ according to the provider 23. 24. Yes - Some decisions are just completely against all decisions made before - it makes the UDRP quite unsafe: you cannot rely on case precedents as you may always have an arbitor that disagrees with what 99% of the other panelists decisions! 25. No limit - withdrawal means often than a compromise with the Respondent has been found 26. 27. Yes 28. YEes - otherwise the UDRP is just a big lottery depending on the appointing panelist 29. No - this is not the gist of an arbitration 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. No - conflict of interests 36. No - this is their job 37. reverse domain name hijacking should not apply to famous worldwide trademark 38. 39. Yes - there are decisions that just ignore case precedents. Many decisions have dissenting panel 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##71########################### 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 : 4 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. yes - I could understand the rules 5. yes - because they made a decision in our favor, which we thought was the right decision 6. no 7. yes - for the convenience of using someone with prior experience, to save me time 8. no 9. 10. no - it was not necessary 11. no difficulty 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, Cannot use in many country-code disputes 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 4 Other : , 1 14. no - this will cause delay and more cost, which makes the UDRP less attractive 15. no -for the same reasons as 14 16. if the Provider fails to take up the matter in a timely manner or permits use of a panelist with a conflict of interest. 17. not sure - they seemed to work for me 18. not sure 19. not sure 20. yes, after the matter is concluded - so people can learn from the material 21. yes, after decision rendered; disclose unless both parties say "no. 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. ##72########################### 1. my earlier answer was submitted prematurely so I am trying to finish this questionnaire where I left off 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. yes, for convenience 23. public domain because they are legal dispute resolution proeedings 24. only if there are new facts or a new circumstance that change the case 25. Can withdraw a complaint until the respondent files an answer. 26. yes - the typical defenses available in litigation, including those listed in the question. 27. yes unless some facts have changed 28. not sure prior decisions should be binding precedent 29. no 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. yes if they have a professional or personal relationship with the party 36. no, so long as the panelist's law firm isn't representing a party in a proceeding in the panelist is involved. 37. I'm not sure what it is. 38. 39. not sure 40. no 41. appearance, sound and meaning 42. no - people should not be allowed to register the trademarks of others as domain names w/o authorization - which is bad faith - and then avoid being brought into a proceeding because they are not using the stolen trademark/domain name. just "sitting" on them. 43. 44. yes 45. 46. yes 47. no 48. yes - at least 50 percent 49. No 50. not sure 51. don't know enought about charters to answer 52. yes - to give complainants 53. 54. no 55. no 56. ##73########################### 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. 5. Yes. As a lawyer, it made a lot of sense. 6. No. 7. Yes. 8. No. 9. N/A 10. No. We have won every decision. 11. No. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 4 Language : 5 Other : 1, I wanted to hammer the opposition with Federal Court litigation 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 3 Other : , 5 14. Yes. There is no good reason not to allow this. 15. Yes. There is no good reason not to allow this. 16. None. 17. Yes. 18. No. 19. Yes. One procedure; one set of rules. It is a matter of basic fairness. Helps prevent forum-shopping. 20. Yes. 21. As the case is proceeding, just like any other legal proceeding. 22. Yes. On line. It is certainly easy enough to do. 23. Public domain. They affect the public. The notion that a provider would own its decisions is absurd. 24. Yes, but only if there are newly-discovered facts. Otherwise, you would have forum-shopping 25. No. 26. No. Makes no sense in this context. Providers should not turn into triers of fact on litigation issues, especially given teh choice of law issues. 27. Yes. 28. Yes. 29. No. Too bureaucratic. Everything would be appealed. Lots of cost and wasted time. 30. 31. 32. 33. N/a 34. N/a 35. Yes. COnflist of interest. COmprimises their appearance of neutrality. 36. No. This would discourage law firms from letting their colleagues serve as panelists. 37. Yes. 38. 39. No. 40. No. 41. No. 42. No,. a Use requirement would encourage warehousing of domain names. Defeats the purpose of a UDRP. 43. Only if the mark has been used. 44. Yes 45. 46. Yes 47. No 48. No 49. No. It is a waste of time when you are dealing with a cybersquatter. Odds are that the parties have already tried to settle the dispute. 50. Absolutely not. 51. No 52. Yes 53. Yes 54. No 55. No 56. ##74########################### 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 : 4 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 1, 4. Yes. 5. Yes. 6. No. 7. (We are counsel) 8. No. 9. n/a 10. No. 11. Yes. Lengthy delays by Registrars post 10 day deadline (several weeks). 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 6 Other : 1, Scope of relief and claims 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. Yes, descretionary and only prior to response filing. To address developements since first filing, fix procedural errors. 15. Yes, descretionary and only prior to decision expected date. To address developements since first filing, fix procedural errors. 16. None. 17. Yes. 18. No. 19. Yes. 20. Yes. Secretive adjudication breeds disrespect of process. 21. All. 22. Yes. 23. Public domain. 24. No - they can go to court to contest. 25. Yes, cannot withdraw after filing of response. 26. No, burdens already enable such arguements, don't need to add formality of a label. 27. No. 28. No. 29. Yes. Help to quickly and cost effectively address obviously inappropriate decisions. 30. 3 person panel mandatory, appellant bears all costs. 31. High defence - reverse oonly per abuse of discretion standard. 32. Yes, for a limited time only. 33. 34. 35. 36. Yes. 37. This is a myth/silly label. Either plaintiff can prove required burdon or not. 38. Do nothing - a facially inadequete complaint need not be responded to. 39. No. 40. No (must apply to mispellings/typo squatters). 41. No. Should be common sense test (consumer perspective). 42. No. Mere registration and holding with more should be enough. 43. None. 44. Yes. 45. 46. 47. Yes - full. 48. No, none. 49. No - that is already being done via cease and desist letters. 50. No, process not adequete to adequete to handle anything more. 51. No. 52. Yes. 53. Yes. 54. No. 55. No. 56. clarify supplemental filing rules (i.e., replys to responses) - must ask permission and discretionary to accept ##75########################### 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 : 2 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. reasonably so 5. no, some panelists obviously had little if any trademark experience 6. no 7. yess 8. no 9. n/a 10. client did not want to spend the money 11. no 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. yes, if facts warrant it 15. yes, if facts warrant it 16. none 17. yes 18. yes 19. no 20. yes 21. after decision 22. yes 23. public domain 24. yes, if circumstances change 25. only with prejudice if answer has been filed 26. 27. yes, if same facts 28. yes 29. yes 30. single institution- financed by appellant 31. modest 32. yes 33. 34. 35. yes 36. no 37. no 38. 39. absolutely a problem 40. yes 41. 42. no, too restrictive 43. if use application OK- notpending application 44. yes 45. 46. yes 47. yes, full 48. yes, partial 49. 50. no 51. no 52. yes 53. yes 54. 55. 56. consistency ##76########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 4, ease of use 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, n/a 4. yes 5. yes 6. no problems 7. yes, Pfizer was represented by outside counsel 8. no 9. 10. no; we (Pfizer) have prevailed in all our cases 11. no problems 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. yes, seem adequate 18. 19. 20. 21. 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. ##77########################### 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 5. Yes 6. No 7. I was the counsel 8. None 9. N/A 10. No 11. No 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 4 Language : 3 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. Yes, if good cause is shown 15. Yes, where justification is shown 16. ? 17. Yes 18. No 19. Not necessary 20. Yes, similar to a court 21. after 22. Yes 23. Public Domain 24. Depends on facts 25. Yes, timing issue 26. Yes 27. No 28. No, different parties 29. To whom?? No 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Yes, for bias or any appearance of conflict 36. Same case, yes. Others no. 37. No 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##78########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 3 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes, rules pretty clear. Only had question re what kind of evidence admissible, e.g., settlement discussion info., but read cases on that point. 5. Yes. Will only recommend WIPO to clients, because their decisions are more consistent and soundly reasoned than those of other providers. 6. No. 7. We are counsel and have represented two clients, who were complainants. 8. No. 9. 10. No. 11. No. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 6 Language : 6 Other : 1, Case against subsequent domain name owner who obtained domain name fourth hand from earlier cybersquatter. Could not prove current registrant's bad faith. 13. Complainant : 2 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : 1 , Process as it is seems to work. 14. Yes, if new circumstances. 15. Yes, if new circumstances. 16. If you specifically select a particular provider, and end up with panelists from other provider. 17. Yes. 18. Yes. See no. 4 above. 19. Yes. 20. Not necessary. 21. Mandatory. 22. Aren't they now, at ICANN's site? 23. Public domain. How else to know how to frame a complaint if not by reading complaints with winning arguments? 24. No . . . unless new evidence becomes available after decision is rendered. 25. No, as long as Respondent can file action for reverse domain name highjacking if Complainant withdraws nonmeritorious complaint. 26. No. A complainant's failure to prove 3 elements are defacto defenses, and panelists already consider laches, acquiesence and genericness of term when rendering decisions. 27. Yes, unless new evidence. 28. Yes. Stare decisis. 29. No. 30. 31. 32. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. Yes. Conflict, bias. 36. No. Should just not have conflict with, bias toward parties. 37. Have not dealth with this issue. 38. 39. Yes. Particularly across Providers. E.g. NAF decisions vs. WIPO decisions. Require NAF panelists to follow format of WIPO decisions so that reasons for decisi 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##79########################### 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. Yes 15. Yes 16. Yes 17. No, give more time 18. 19. Yes 20. Yes, the more openness there is in the system the less supidity will slip through the cracks 21. At or before the decision 22. Yes, make it easy to look for precidence and for organizations abusing the process ie 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. ##80########################### 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. Yes 15. Yes 16. Yes 17. No, give more time 18. 19. Yes 20. Yes, the more openness there is in the system the less supidity will slip through the cracks 21. At or before the decision 22. Yes, make it easy to look for precidence and for organizations abusing the process (ie aol,vivendi) 23. Public domain 100%. This whole URDP is an attempt to set up a kangaroo court. If the process is to get any respect it has to be open and public. 24. They should be allowed to appeal but ONLY if a respondent who loses a case can refile as well. 25. No limit on withdrawl 26. Yes, the burden of proof and injury should be on the part of the complainent. 27. Yes 28. Yes 29. Yes 30. 31. don't know 32. yes 33. 34. 35. yes, if they have any personal connection to the case 36. definitely! 37. NO 38. 39. Yes 40. trademarks should have no bearing on the process 41. 42. yes 43. trademarks should have no bearing on the process 44. yes 45. 46. yes 47. yes, full 48. no 49. Yes, there should be a reasonable period of time (2 weeks or so) after the respondent is notified of the complaint before the proceedure starts. During this time the parties can try to reach other arrangenments 50. No 51. No 52. No 53. 54. Yes, the free market... and the princinple of "first come, first served" 55. 56. ##81########################### 1. Other Potential 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. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 6 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 2 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. yes 15. yes 16. if providers are randomly assigned, then each party should have the right of one refusal for any reason 17. yes 18. there must be lower-cost options for not-for-profits 19. generally they should be uniform. WIPO's treatment of international issues might justify some variation, but it should be minor. 20. Yes, all of ICANN's procedures should be transparent. Complainants should waive any right to confidentiality. 21. Under all circumstances. Complainants or respondents should have the right to didact only a very small portion of their materials (e.g. to protect trade secrets). There is really nothing in the complaint process that justifies any secrecy. 22. Yes, of course. UDRP is working for the public. 23. They don't need to be in the public domain, but do need to be available to anyone. A non-exclusive license to view & quote from materials is critical. (I'm not saying GPL...just open) 24. You need an appeals procedure for any circumstance; either side should be able to appeal, but the initial decision should take place immediately (e.g., if a transfer of domain is decided on, then that should happen while the appeal proceeds) 25. They paid for it, they can withdraw it. 26. Any defense the parties want to bring is valid; the UDRP needs to consider all factors. 27. Yes, there should be a way to have a rapid decision based on prior experiences (without prejudice if they decide to recourse to a full proceedings) 28. Yes, of course, how can they not? Consistency, and transparency, and the ability to use a base of "case law" for future decisions, are critical and obvious. 29. Yes, see #24. 30. Appeals should go to a separate UDRP; cost should be less than the prior complaint. 31. Appeals should have the same evidence and the findings of the prior determination, then make their own assessment based on that evidence. 32. Yes, automatic. 33. 34. 35. No, noone should be disqualified. But if there is a potential conflict of interest, informaiton about this should be available to all parties. 36. Law firms should be allowed, but the quantity of evidence for any complaint must be limited. (E.g., it's not fair for a firm to produce hundreds of pages of briefs) 37. I don't think anything has been dealt with adequately by the UDRP. 38. UDRP should not deal with liabilities and remedies, they should be limited to making decisions about domain names. There's no distinction between RDNH and other forms of disputes. 39. Not sure if there is consistency or not. 40. Any source of evidence should be permitted. 41. Yes, factors should be included. Do this inductively (from cases decided) not a priori. 42. Any source of evidence should be permitted. 43. Any source of evidence should be permitted. 44. No, this is the BIGGEST PROBLEM with the current processes. Not-for-profit organizations and others with limited funds must be allowed a reduced rate (under $500). Evidence for this is easy to provide for actual corporations or other not-for-profits. 45. See #44. Also, consider a sliding scale for the largest corporations -- repeatedly harrassing should cost more money. 46. Streamlined processes will result in less work, which should be a goal. Fees seem high to me, but not astronomically high. 47. No, no refunds after a short period (say, 72 hours...). 48. No, no refunds unless the default is immediate. 49. No, that's none of your business. Just handle the complaints. 50. Anything related to domain names is your domain. Everything else is not. 51. While UDRP organizations might deal with these issues, it's outside the scope of the UDRP itself. 52. The TLDs should decide who decides their disputes. If they choose the UDRP, then they submit to UNIFORM UDRP procedures. 53. If the UDRP is commissioned by both TLDs, yes. 54. No, but you need to be faster and more transparent, with a sliding pay scale to make it cheaper for those organizations without money. 55. My organization is Project Gutenberg. We have two complaints we would like to pursue, but cannot afford it (the ~$3000 is 12% of our annual expenditure). We are instead working on the trademark angle with our pro bono lawyers. This is a failure of the UDRP, and is a very common story. 56. ##82########################### 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. ##83########################### 1. Other Making sure the net stays fair. 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 : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 3 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 3 Respondent : 3 Both Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : , 1 Selected randomly from a set of impartial providers. 14. Yes, because websites can change, the complaint may need to be updated. 15. Yes, in response the a change in the complaint. 16. Should not be allowed to transfer cases. 17. Yes, adeequate. 18. No 19. Yes, to ensure fairness. 20. Yes, to judge the fairness of the Providers. 21. mandatory, updated as soon as possible, even while the case is ongoing. 22. Yes, centralized information that is trusted. 23. public domain. 24. No. 25. No limits on withdrawing the complaint. But also not allowed to re-file after withdrawing. 26. Yes, generic terms. 27. Yes. 28. Yes, to speed things up. 29. No. 30. 31. 32. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. yes, when they are not impartial to the case. 36. yes, lawyers suck. 37. Yes. 38. 39. Yes, impartial panelists, plus previous cases as prior art. 40. Yes 41. 42. Yes. 43. pending trademarks not valid. 44. No, way too much for the average person. 45. Much lower. 46. made the pay like jury duty. 47. partial. 48. partial. 49. no. 50. no. 51. Yes, to ensure fairness. 52. Yes, fairness. 53. Yes, but only if the main domain name is the same. Makes work easier. 54. No. 55. No.. 56. Not accessible to the average person. ##84########################### 1. Constituency Member Public, 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 : 3 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 5 Other : 1, Lack of uniformity, no precedent, which laws apply? 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : 1, Comp&Resp if they agree, else random; Label numbers missing, unreliable survey data. Was this pretested? 14. No, make it a simple process. But can supplement in brief 15. No, but supplement in brief 16. transfer, but successor stands in shores of predecessor, joined in dispute process. 17. 18. 19. 20. Yes. Light diminishes incentive for error and falsehood. 21. This isn't a trade secret or divorce hearing. Make it all public, at least for five years or Net storage costs rise too much. 22. yes. Light diminishes incentive for error and falsehood. Public has to find the light to see it. 23. Decision text should be PD. The decision itself (yes, no, etc) is not anyone's property, its free information, a fact. 24. No refile, estoppel, on same facts, parties, etc. Differenct, yes. 25. If withdraw and respondant has engendered costs, reasonable costs should be paid to respondant, if there were a reliable enforcement mechanism. 26. Yes, as is equitable. 27. Generall yes, if facts same and no changed circumstances. 28. Not with current quality. Not without appellate process to weed out bad decisions. Allow precedent be seen but no authority, akin to USA law of a different federal circuit, influence but not binding authority. 29. Not if an adverse decision can be "appealed" by taking same question to a national court. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Prior disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest to prospective parties, if they still want panelist then ok. 36. Same as 36, full prior disclosure, let parties exclude if they think a problem. 37. Was not in past. Were their monetary sanctions--strong cases loser pays prevailing party rasonable costs, that might help. 38. Perhaps national law legal case, unfair competition, attempted theft, etc. 39. Yes. Make it easy for parties to see all past decisions & potential conflicts & background of prospective panelist, & a few premptory exclusions. 40. Likely confusion is likely confusion, appearance, meaning, etc. I'm fond of USA trademark, fairly well developed law, in this regard. 41. Yes, standard (nonexclusive) Poloroaid or DuPont factors. With public, easy report & index/search of results. 42. Any bad faith anywhere taints, but is a nondetermative factor. 43. Pending trademark application grants no rights until registration issues, contingent vesting. Thus not sufficient proof. 44. 45. 46. 47. Yes, if complaint drops complaint, respondent should get, as much as feasible, reimbursement of its reasonable costs and fees. 48. Yes, any party backing out should be subject to simple fee petition and reimbursing reasonable costs of other side. 49. No. Make the standard times sufficient for negotiations, if a party wants. Keep it simple. 50. Not til current irregularities, nonuniformity, which law, public accountability/notice, etc are much better. 51. 52. Yes, but I've not heard much debate, perhaps ccTLD has some structural difference. 53. If ccTLD are included with gTLD in UDRP, then yes. 54. Old fashioned trademark infringement and unfair competition may not be cybersquatt, but handle some issues. 55. Yes, direct contact with other party, and obvious threat of court/UDRP is informal disucssions not resolve matter. 56. Flawed survey, eg #13 choices give numbers, no labels, what's 6, etc. #13 is nost #12, imp not agaree. ##85########################### 1. Constituency Member US 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 : 5 Other : , 1 14. No 15. Yes 16. When the respondant has no convienient venue 17. 18. 19. 20. yes. Nearly all complaints are big corporations trying to grab URL's from small operator, a process which you allow them the exploit to their advantage. 21. 22. yes, as the panelist should have their decisions subject to public scrutiny 23. Public domain 24. no 25. yes, to prevent 26. domain is patently different than any trademark. adding significant terms like 'sucks' 'bites' 'loser' ect is certainly enought to utilize this defense 27. yes, to prevent corporations from using multiple complaints to financially 'punish' small users with lesser resources 28. yes, so that consistant standards can be set. 29. yes, every process needs an appeal. 30. 31. none 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. yes 37. 38. 39. yes 40. yes, in the past, this has been used as a flimsy argument to grab domains. Vivendi is not remotely close to Vivendisucks. 41. yes. and remember that domains are free speech, and not the property of corporations. 42. no....the only determination of 'bad faith' is the attempt to sell a domain to other parties...if a person doesn't wish to make commercial use of a name, that is not the same as bad faith, the internet is not entirely commercial, and it's your duty to protect the noncommercial parts as well 43. never 44. no...they should be significantly less. 45. lowered, or made free 46. yes 47. yes, if the complaintant drops the complaint, it should bear the entire cost 48. none 49. 50. no 51. non 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. quit giving every decision to corporations/trademark holders...only in a few cases that I've read about have these decisions been appropriate. ##86########################### 1. Constituency Member Domain Holder 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 : 1 Quality of decisions : 6 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. Complaints should be tried in their initial format, and then dismissed with predjudice. 15. Yes. Many respondents have implemented or planned to implement social, political, and other non-commercial or various free speech sites, and should be granted the greatest possible protection from being squelched by those of differing viewpoint. 16. Where either prejudice or a lack/loss of capacity or impartiality (or the appearance thereof) on the part of the provider is shown, and the process should be a public hearing presided over by recognized legal authority. 17. No. The notice provision fails to provide time for respondent consideration, and further, fails to incorporate provisions for the defense of impoverished respondents. 18. 19. Yes. Consistent rules provide a more stable foundation for the internet. The number of those consistent rules, however, should be kept to an absolute minimum. 20. Yes, as the copies of complaints, responses, and decisions are a vital guide in determining future conduct of net participants at all levels. 21. If you mean #20, I would argue that the various documents should only be considered valid if they are publicly filed and centrally available, and not available to be acted upon until that requirement is met. 22. Yes. Failure to have a central registry and publicly available record of such decisions mandates repeated revisits to the same or similar issues by subsequent parties to obtain the same decisions for additional exhorbitant cost, and further, shields the decision maker from public criticism and/or guidance 23. Again, the decisions must be public domain and freely available in order to offer guidance to the net participant in their plan 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. ##87########################### 1. Other Consumer 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 : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. No, they should come to the table ready to argue. Either they have a case, or they don't. 15. Same as above. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Yes, the internet is a public place and should be open to scrutiny. 21. 22. Yes, it would be more efficient. 23. In the public domain. 24. No. 25. Withdrawing should equal conceding of the case. 26. Yes. COmplainants have no right to mispellings. They have only one right, to the exact name. "Rightful" owners cannot have it both ways. 27. 28. 29. 30. Complainant should pay for all costs. If they wanted to ward off this action, they should have obtained the URL in the first place. URLs are not expensive, compared tolitigation. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Full refund. 48. No refund. 49. There's plenty of time to bargain before filing. Complainant should file when it is the last avenue. 50. No. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. URDP must realize that 'right' to an URL is only applicable to the EXACT or obviously exact URL, nothing more. Mispellings, appendings, etc. There is no right to that. ##88########################### 1. Other Potential 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 : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 4 Other : 1, 13. Complainant : 4 Respondent : 3 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 1 14. No. File the complaint and be done. 15. Yes. As the party likely to be deprived of an existing domain, there should be a presumption of validity and the UDRP should favor the respondent. 16. If either party can show bias or incompetence, randomly draw a new Provider. 17. 18. 19. 20. Yes. The shady dealings that have thus far characterized the UDRP demand public scrutiny. 21. 22. Yes. See resp. 20. 23. Public domain. The Internet is collapsing under a chokehold of IP. 24. Yes, if the complainant can show bias or incompetence by the Provider. 25. If withdrawn, it can never be re-filed. 26. Yes. Generic terms, satire, parody, protest... 27. Yes. 28. No. The proceedings thus far have been marked by incompetence and a clear favoritism for corporate complainants. Each bad decision serves as precedent for subsequent bad decisions and this must be stopped. 29. Yes. Too many bad decisions have been made. 30. Different provider, no fewer than five panelists, cost to be borne by appellant. 31. Zero. 32. Yes. 33. 34. 35. 36. Yes. There must be not a whiff of bias. 37. No. The UDRP and its panelists have shown that they are slaves of corporate interests, failing utterly to pass the sniff test when these types of cases arise. Cf. the many "sucks" criticism domains that have been ordered transferred to the criticized. 38. Massive fines against reverse hijackers. the UDRP should be quite clear that a domain name which is parodying, satirical, critical, etc. cannot by definition be registered in "bad faith" -- no matter the language in which it appears. 39. Yes. I don't know how to fix this. 40. Yes. 41. 42. Yes. Too many parody and criticism sites have been purported to be in bad faith. 43. None. Pending trademarks are worth nothing. Let a complainant register the domain at the time the trademark registration is applied for. If beaten to the punch, that's too bad. 44. 45. 46. 47. Yes. Full refund. 48. Yes. Full refund. 49. No. 50. No. 51. No. You can't handle domain name disputes fairly; an expansion into incompetent dealings with other conflicts would be inappropriate. 52. Yes. 53. No. Very few domain name disputes cross national boundaries. 54. First come, first serve. No matter what. 55. 56. Frankly, the UDRP should be scrapped for a first come policy. It's the only way to ensure fairness given the unending pitting of multibillion-dollar companies against private citizens. ##89########################### 1. Other User of internet and future domain name 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 : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 5 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. If the original complaint is incomplete, or otherwise defective, the comlainant should file a new complaint. The procedure to handle complaints should be fast enough that this does not couse unruly problems for complainant. 15. Yes. The respondant should hae a set deadline before which he should respond to the complaint. Before that deadline is met, the respondant should be able to amend their response, even if they have filed a response earlier. 16. The complainant or the respondent should be able to switch the provider, when he can show a reasonable doubt for the impartiability of the provider. 17. no comment 18. no comment 19. no comment 20. Both should be publicly accessible. The process needs to be as transparent as possible, so that everyone can trust that the resolution is fair. 21. 22. Yes, accessing the decisions should be as easy as possible for everyone. If the process is not as transparent as possible, people start to form conspiracy theories and distrust the resolution process. 23. no comment 24. Yes. The complainant should be able to refile, if it can provide significant new information. 25. Yes, there should be limits. The comlainant should not be able to withdraw and refile the comlaint to get a more favorable provider. The complainant should only be allowed to refile the claim if it can provide significant new information. 26. The UDRP should have a necessary protection for unreasonable claims. 27. no comment 28. No. Thwe UDRP decisions have proven to be mostly random so far, so the priort UDRP decisions should not have any effect on future procedings within the UDRP until the process works as intended. 29. Yes. The quality of UDRP decisions so far has been very bad, so there should be an appeals procedure. 30. no comment 31. no comment 32. Yes. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. No. There should be penalties for filing a complaint in bad faith. The current procedure encourages complaints that have no merit. 38. 39. Yes. The ability for complainant to choose providers encourages providers to have a bias towards comlainant. The provider should be random and it should be possible to appeal the decision. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Full refund. 48. No refund is necessary. 49. 50. No. 51. No. Charter violations should be handled by the TLD. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. The UDRP shows a huge bias towards commercial entities. The panelists that repeatedly make decicions that are wrong (that get appealed and overturned) should be sanctioned. ##90########################### 1. Other domain name 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 : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, The utter corruption of ICANN and the "arbiters" it uses to steal domain names. Not to mention that I'd have to hire lawyers in several countries. 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 2 oth Complainant and Respondent : 1 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : 1, Doesn't mater much. Historically, the Taliban are more fair than the Quislings ICANN uses 14. Sure, they need all the time they can get to get their lies straight. 15. Absolutly. It's not like they'll ever win, but let them kill trees, it'll give ICANN the appearance of fairness. 16. By all means, let the complaintants change providers until they get one that'll stay bought. 17. NO. 18. 19. 20. Yes. Because the world has a right to see how ICANN is screwing everyone in sight. 21. 22. Yes. Same as #20. 23. Public domain. Secret courts destroying people and businesses usually result in an armed uprising. 24. Nope. In the unlikely event that they lose, they're just going to ignore ICANN and file civil suit, or criminal charges against the domain name owner. 25. If they choose to withdraw, then the domain name owner should be given a decision that shows they own the domain name. Otherwise you're going to get these stalkers who harass people day and night by filing and withdrawing complaints every few months. 26. Yes. generic term, complaintant not filing a complaint within a reasonable time (say, six months after the name is registered), complaintant hoarding names, 27. Nope. Most of the current and prior decisions to date were bought and paid for. Until ICANN has some credibility, using these will just continure to destroy ICANN 28. Nope. There's no consistency in the decisions now, other than the DNO almost always loses. 29. Yes. The question is to whom? 30. Uh, how about using the World Court? ICANN can pay them for their time, and they won't be any more corrupt than the current pack of scandal plauged 'people'. 31. none 32. The right should be guaranteed. The appeal should not be automatic. 33. 34. 35. Yes. It's an ethical issue. 36. Yes. They have no ethical way of serving ICANN and a party to a dispute. 37. No. There needs to be severe penalties (civil AND criminal) for reverse hijackers. 38. Civil penalties should be between 3 and 20 million USD. Anyone involved in this crime should be given 5-25 years in prison with no parole. 39. Yes. Both. Well, you could stop all the unethical behavior, the appearance that ICANN can be bribed into giving any kind of decision the complaintant wants, etc. 40. 41. 42. Yes. Why else call it bad faith? 43. If a complaintant files a trademark app 5 years after the domain name owner registers the name, why should that trademark count? Should I be able to file a trademark now on "ICANN" and take your domain away from you? 44. No. How can a small company deal with all these costs and stay in business? How can an individual do the same? I know, you hope to run off all the people and make sure the internet is only owned and operated by Fortune 100 companies... 45. There should be a sliding scale. 46. No. See #44. Get a sliding scale. 47. yes, full. Why would I pay people who aren't working? 48. Same as #47 49. Yes. 50. No. ICANN is already trying to grab too much power, and doesn't have enough gov't oversite or fair elections. 51. Yes. 52. I think the UDRP should be abolished until a fair and representative body can be elected, and then a new policy can be established. 53. 54. I hear that threats and violence work pretty well. Hasbro stole lots of domain names by threatening the rightful owners. Probably still does, thanks to the UDRP. 55. 56. I think the UDRP excels at trampling peoples rights, allowing rich people and corporations to hurt those who have little money, and making a lot of lawyers rich while lining the pockets of ICANN people. The UDRP is an execellant example of why the Marines should storm ICANN and Verisign and take back control of the Internet, killing anyone who gets in their way during the liberation. ##91########################### 1. Other ICANN@Large Member 2. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, The way you are certain to only serve business interests 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 3 Experience of Panelists : 6 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 5, Lameness 4. Totally smoke and mirrors 5. Nope. The drool was the first tip off. 6. Yes they claimed to speak english, but they were completely uncomprehendable! 7. Lawyers are the Last resort of theives and cowards 8. Proof you dont need no stinkin proof, as your decisions aptly show 9. 10. Because I can't afford to out spend the legal department of a fortune 500 corporation. 11. Nope I just sent the JackBooted Thugs in and stole my ill-gotten goods 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 3 Other : 5, gayness 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 1 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 1 14. No 15. Yes 16. None 17. By massive bribery, cash rules dude 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. No, injunt yourself 50. No 51. No 52. No 53. 54. 55. 56. In their total inability to carry out their duties in a legal and democratic manner. ##95########################### 1. Other Internet User 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 : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 5 Other : 3, The system currently in place does not seem to respect people, only corperations. 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : 1, Their should be 3 seperate processes established, 1 company to company, one person to person, and one company to person, each with seperate thresholds. 14. No. They should be alloud to show additional supporting evidence, but not ammend the complaint itself. 15. Individuials, yes. Corperations, no. 16. Hardship. A respondant should be able to have it transfered to a venue closer to their physical location. 17. Lots of room for improvement. 18. Yes, the rules are slanted too far in favor of corperations. 19. Yes. Having non-uniform rules creates bad presidents. 20. Yes. This process must be transparent if it is to be respected. It also allows the public to watch for any abuse of the system. 21. 22. Yes. This is too importiant to the public to make a mokery out of by hiding the information. 23. Public Domain. The providers are resolving a dispute, not creating IP. 24. 25. 26. Yes. All of the above, plus obvious complaint names (IE anything-sucks.com), satires and anything elcs that would be considered fair use in US courts (iccan is sponcered by the US) 27. This should be a part of the ruling. If it is ruled that the actions were taken in bad faith, then further action should be precluded. Non respondaints should not under any cirumstance be classified as acting in bad faith for not legaly responding to this action. 28. Yes. UDRP should be clearifing issues. 29. Yes. Without the built in safeguards and reviews, this is truely a kangaroo court. 30. ICCAN fees should be paying for the cost of UDRP cases, with each side paying their own legal fees. Only in cases of bad faith should the loosing party be forced to 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. ##96########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 4 Provider's supplemental rules : 2 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes 5. In most cases, yes. 6. No. 7. I was counsel for various entities. 8. No difficulties, but discovery would be very helpful in some cases. 9. We responded to the complaint. 10. Yes (in a way). We are pursuing federal claims against a cybersquatter currently. 11. No. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 4 Other : 1, I don't know what "Barriers" means here. 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 2 oth Complainant and Respondent : 2 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : , 1 14. No. It increases the costs for the respondent to have to respond twice. Be thorough to begin with. 15. No. 16. Only in the case of demonstrable bias. 17. Yes they are adequate. 18. 19. Yes. They SHOULD be uniform. 20. Yes. It will help others go after frequent cybersquatters and reduce legal fees. 21. I don't understand the question. Are you asking when the uniform rules should not be uniform? 22. Yes 23. Public domain, as court decisions are. 24. Yes. If the respondentdefendant's conduct post-decision indicates that complainant defendant should have lost. 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. ##97########################### 1. Constituency Member IPCWIPO 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 4, The only remedies of interest was to get back the name 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 6 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 4, Easy information on Providers web site 4. Yes, but I guess that it is not so easy for the first comer. 5. Yes. I could easily check their CVs from the WIPO web site. 6. No 7. I am a counsel. As a Panelist, I have seen a few badly written Complaints by companies without an experienced counsel. 8. It is sometimes hard to get copies of clients TM Registrations, as time is essential. Another difficulty is to get access to the Whois data, especially from Nudomains. 9. N/A 10. No. The decisions were well founded. 11. I have had some problems with Network Solution /NSI. They are extremely slow. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 3 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 6 Language : 5 Other : 1, Difficulties in proving all 3 requirements 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 5 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 5 Other : , 5 14. No! It would increase the time and costs for the proceeding. 15. No! They have the benefit of reading the Complaint before they respond. That should be enough. 16. Not a good idea, as it would increase both costs and time. 17. Yes. 18. No 19. Yes. Would make it easier to compare Service Providers. 20. In principle, it is a good idea, however there will be practical problems as there is a lot of papers filed, with pictures, lists, copies of news articles, etc. My answer is therefore NO. 21. N/A 22. Yes. That will form a source for practice and make it easier to compare decisions. 23. Public Domain, just as a court decision. 24. Only in the rare cases where there are new and important facts. 25. No 26. No 27. Only when also the facts are identical. 28. In a way thaey have that in practice allready. However, all facts must be considered case by case. 29. The UDRP is a sort of arbitration, and you can not appeal such decision. I believe that it is enough to have the possibility to ta 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. ##98########################### 1. Panelist What does this mean?CPR, WIPO,eResolution,Arbitration Forum 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. Yes, to clarify and file material that was omitted inadvertantly. 15. Yes, to clarify and file material that was omitted inadvertantly. 16. I do noth think that they should do so. 17. Yes 18. I think that it should be clear that an Administrative Panel can allow replies. 19. No. Users should have a choice - within reason 20. Yes. The process leads to a public result. 21. After the decision 22. Yes. For guidance and as a check on quality 23. Public domain. The process leads to a public result 24. No, unless new information comes to light. An endless process is not desirable. 25. Other than paying the cost of a respondent that has participated, no. 26. No. Leave the process to develop on its own 27. No. This would be contrary to the nature of the arbitral process and there is a great diversity of legal backgrounds at play. 28. No, for the same reason. 29. Yes for quality control 30. Three. No. No. Paid and absorbed by the appelant. 31. Considerable 32. Yes 33. Yes, particularly if one begins as soon as the material is recieved electronically 34. No 35. 36. No 37. Yes 38. 39. Yes. I do not propose any amendments. 40. I do not understand the question. We are talking about words, not pictures. 41. No. Common sense should prevail. 42. No. Use either should do, with the caveat that a name registered in bad faith cannot be used in good faith by the original registrant. 43. All circumstances 44. Yes 45. 46. Yes 47. No. 48. No 49. No 50. No 51. No 52. Yes 53. Yes for efficiency 54. No 55. No 56. none ##99########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 4, 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. Step-by step process makes it very easy. 5. Yes. 6. No. 7. Yes. 8. No. 9. N/A 10. N/A No, we use it to knock out hard to win cases. 11. Only on the part of Network Solutions. They typically take a long time to do anything. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 5 Other : 6, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 2 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 4 Other : , 5 14. Yes. New facts or acts of bad faith may come up (registrant may try to transfer the domain name after being notified of the complaint). 15. Yes, only if they are facts that could not have been obtained after they had received the complaint. 16. Never. 17. Yes. 18. No. 19. Yes. Easier to understand and implement. 20. No, only decisions. 21. mandatory 22. Yes. For citing purposes. 23. Public domain name...just like case law. 24. No. They should look at other options and consider if it is even worth it anymore. 25. No. 26. No. 27. Yes. 28. Yes...they should be treated like case law. 29. No. Other options should be considered if the UDRP does not work out. 30. The party who appeals the decision should have to pay for it. They should be able to choose how many panelists, and they should not get the same one. 31. None. 32. yes. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. No. 36. No. 37. Never dealt with that issue. 38. N/A 39. No. 40. Yes. 41. N/A 42. Yes. 43. Yes...with new products, it is often found that domain names get registered at the same time as the trademark applications. Those are often the domain names that get taken right away. 44. Yes. 45. No. 46. N/A 47. No. 48. Yes, partial since that would then free up the panelists to hear other proceedings. 49. No. 50. What is meant by abusive? 51. N/A 52. Yes...because they are becoming interchangeable and a lot of countries do not have their own dispute policy. 53. Yes. It would be easier. 54. No. 55. N/A 56. N/A ##100########################### 1. Complainant trademark practitioner 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 4, 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. yes, excellent resource base of decisions and statistics 5. mostly yes, most had good grasp of law 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. yes, 15. yes 16. 17. 18. 19. yes 20. no 21. 22. yes 23. public domain 24. no, but there should be an appellate process 25. 26. yes, the ones mentioned 27. no 28. yes 29. YES! to ensure uniformity within the system 30. ICANN coordinates single instutuion, appelant bears most of costs 31. high, mostly stick to issues of law, not fact. 32. yes 33. 34. 35. 36. yes 37. no 38. respondent demands bond, complainant loses bond if RDNH 39. yes, appeal 40. no 41. no, its fine 42. registration in bad faith is enough 43. when there is use as well. 44. 45. 46. 47. yes, full 48. partial 49. yes, OHIM (CTM trademark, se http://www.oami.eu.int) 50. yes bad faith use on the website, including meta tags 51. yes 52. not ccTLDs, but yes to gTLDs 53. 54. Yes, the Danish ccTLD at www.difo.dk 55. (see 54) 56. ##101########################### 1. Other American Bar Association 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 : 5 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 5 Other : 6, 13. Complainant : 5 Respondent : 5 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 1 Other : , 2 14. Yes, to address allegations raised in response not previously considered, but this could adversly affect the speed of the proceedings 15. Yes, Same as 14 16. Limited change when there is a conflict of interest. Otherwise, the provider should be selected randomly to avoid provider shopping and then the parties must live with the draw. 17. Yes 18. 19. Yes. Uniformity may cut down on provider shopping and provide a level of comfort to parties, in that they will not have to alter their practice for any given forum. 20. Yes. They provide examples to guide conduct, a record of the parties positions, and are useful in maintaining confidence in the system. 21. If this question is referring to question 20, documents should be automatically accessible as soon as they may be published, and publication should not be in the discretion of the parties. 22. Yes. Centrally located decisions would help in searching, encourage uniformity in panel decisions, and make it easier to track the interpretation of the UDRP through the panel decisions. 23. These decisions should be in the public domain. We should not provide additional means for providers to exploit their captive audience. 24. 25. 26. Yes, the defenses of laches and acquiesence are appropriate, or create a statute of limitations for challenging a name that has been registered. This would help to provide certainty as to the transferability of domain names. A genericness does not seem appropriate because domain names are not directly related to any goods. A registered trademark may include generic terms that used in the context of its particular goods make less than generic. 27. Yes 28. There should be an attempt at creating uniformity in the decisions. In the very least prior decisions should be considered persuasive. 29. No. To preserve the speed and finality of UDRP decisions, appeals should not be allowed. 30. 31. 32. 33. n/a 34. n/a 35. Yes, based on conflicts of interest. 36. Yes, this may create an appearance of or actual conflict of interest or bias and discredits the decision in the eyes of the public and the parties. 37. No. The current bias toward registered trademark holders facilitates this process, and the system provides no meaningful consequence for this type of action. One solution, outside of creating a meaningful penalty, would be to remove the financial barriers of filing a declaratory judgement type of action by a potential respondent. 38. As a start, attorneys fees and costs should be refunded by the RDNH party. Mandatory Fines in a fixedamount or amount determined by the panel. 39. Yes. Central publishing of opinions, required panelist training on an ongoing basis, and stricter oversight of eligible providers. 40. sight and sound 41. no, common sense consideration of the sight and sound of the mark should rule. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it probably is confusingly similar to a duck. 42. Bad faith registration should be the standard to prevent cybersquatting. Adding a use requirement could delay actions because the complainant would have to wait until the bad faith use occurred. 43. None. A complainant should be able to establish rights based on their use of a mark. Application is a formality and is not probative of any rights in a mark. 44. 45. 46. 47. Yes full. 48. Yes full. 49. 50. 51. no 52. yes 53. yes, for uniformity 54. 55. no 56. It is my experience that some registrants had the best of intentions, i.e. a new business venture, a forum for discussion etc..., when registering their domain name, but after a period of time have not been successful in using the domain name. It has become accepted that these names have value as intellectual property beyond the cost of registration. Based on this value, a registrant will be reluctant to simply abandon his/her registration. To encourage these registrants to release their domain names to those that can use them, the UDRP or ICANN should define safe harbor for subsequent transfer of these names. ##102########################### 1. Constituency Member Corporate Trademark Owner 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 4, 3. Provider reputation : 3 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 6, 4. Yes 5. The cases were settled prior to decision 6. No 7. Yes 8. No 9. N/A 10. No - domain name transferred as part of settlement 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 : , 5 14. Yes, if previously unknown information becomes available 15. Yes, if previously unknown information becomes available 16. No such circumstances. If the case goes "bad", the courts are available. 17. No. There is very little time afforded Respondent. 18. 19. Yes. 20. Yes. 21. 22. Yes 23. Public Domain 24. No, the courts are available. 25. No limits 26. No 27. Yes 28. Yes 29. No, the courts are available 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. No 36. No 37. Yes 38. 39. 40. Yes 41. 42. No, either one shjould be enough. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Yes, partial. 48. Yes, partial. 49. No 50. No 51. 52. Yes 53. 54. 55. 56. ##103########################### 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 : 2 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 4 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 6, 4. Yes. The supplemental rules clarified it. 5. hard to tell; was a default. 6. no 7. I was counsel. 8. no. 9. 10. no. 11. Yes. The registrar did not transfer the domain name & someone else bought it (even after order to transfer). We have probably had 8-10 contacts with registrar trying to get it to transfer the domain name. Very frustrating. ItsYourDomain.com is registrar. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 4 Other : 6, 13. Complainant : 1 Respondent : 4 oth Complainant and Respondent : 3 Neither, provider should be selected randomly : 2 Other : , 5 14. No. 15. No. 16. None. 17. Yes. 18. 19. Yes. Ease of administration. 20. Yes. Would help potential complainants determine whether someone is actual cybersquatter or has right to domain name. 21. mandatory 22. yes. Will make it easier to do research to prepare and respond to complaints 23. public domain. It would be crazy to have this be I.P. of providers. Would make providers look like money hungry mercenaries instead of providers of quasi-governmental process. 24. yes--in court. 25. Yes. Should not be able to withdraw after respondent has filed answer unless agrees to withdraw WITH prejudice. 26. Yes. Generic or descriptive term; respondent has legit. right to name. 27. yes. 28. 29. No. Loses the speed advantage of UDRP proceedings 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Yes. 36. No. If this was the rule, no one from large firms would agree to be a panelist. 37. Yes. 38. 39. Yes. 40. Yes, Otherwise it becomes too much of a trademark infringement analysis & the proceedings would take longer. 41. 42. no. Either should be enough. 43. If it is use-based. 44. yes 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. no 50. no 51. 52. yes 53. 54. 55. 56. ##104########################### 1. Other counsel for party 2. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, only realistic way of reclaiming domain name 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. yes 5. yes 6. no 7. see above 8. no 9. 10. no - decisions either favourable or parties reached negotiated settlement 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 - once Response received new evidence should be addressed 15. no 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. ##105########################### 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. Neither, provider should be selected randomly 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. ##106########################### 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. 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. ##107########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, Only means to deal with global problems 3. Provider reputation : 2 Provider's supplemental rules : 3 Experience of Panelists : 4 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 6, 4. yes 5. yes 6. no 7. no, own experience 8. no 9. 10. no need was 11. yes, handling by network solutions defectuous; they screwed up technically 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Neither, provider should be selected randomly 14. according to civil procedures 15. according to civil procedures 16. if quality of provider has proven to be unsatisfactory 17. yes 18. no 19. yes 20. no, commercial secrets to be kept 21. 22. yes 23. public domain, shouldn't be source of unfair business for info delivery 24. yes 25. no limits 26. 27. yes 28. no, law changes with society 29. yes 30. 3 panelists 31. 32. yes 33. 34. 35. yes, if biased or imcompatiblity with personal interests 36. yes, of course 37. nor 38. establish clear legal rules adapted to practice 39. yes, coordination could and should be improved 40. no, broaden the spectrum 41. yes 42. only use in bad faith can be handled in pragmatic way 43. hold harmless if trademark doesn't ripe into registration 44. yes 45. losing party pay fees!!!!!! 46. yes 47. yes, loser should pay the bill 48. full refund 49. yes, cooling off 50. yes, ccTLD to be included 51. yes 52. yes, for legal security and consistency 53. yes 54. 55. direct negotiation 56. Make the losing party pay, that keeps grabbers away ##108########################### 1. Other Attorney representing parties before UDRP 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 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. No, process was not clear because rules are often complied with in different ways depending on to whom the case is handled both in terms of panelist and administrator 5. Panelists seem to come to process with bias either pro or against process. My impression is that the trademark lawyers who have been criticized as being too "pro" complainant are in fact bending over backwards to be even-handed. 6. 7. 8. Yes. One panelist found proof sufficient; another panelist in different case rejected same proof on technical grounds 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Other There should only be one provider who can draw panelists from many sources. 14. Yes, amendments should be allowed. Nothing to prevent complainant from withdrawing and refiling. Why not just allow amendments. 15. Same as above 16. no way to transfer 17. 18. 19. 20. they should not be public because that will make the process even more political 21. 22. should be availalbe. 23. in the public domain just like court decisions 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. ##109########################### 1. Respondent 2. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, We were respondent, were not aware of other options 3. Provider reputation : 2 Provider's supplemental rules : 3 Experience of Panelists : 5 Quality of decisions : 4 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 1, As Respondent, did not select Provider 4. Yes, all processes and instructions were made clear. 5. Yes, based on published biographies, we were satisfied that panelists were experienced and fair. 6. No 7. No, we did not want to take on additional expenses. 8. No 9. N/A 10. No, we won our case and were satisfied with the result 11. N/A 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. Yes, in interest of fairness, but Respondent should be allowed to point out inconsistencies 15. Only if Complaint is amended 16. No opinion 17. We were satisfied with all notification procedures. 18. We were satisfied with the rules in our case 19. No opinion 20. Yes, so participants in future cases can better prepare 21. At discretion of parties, as soon as possible after decision rendered 22. Yes, so participants in future cases can better prepare 23. Public domain, so participants in future cases can better prepare 24. No 25. No limits 26. No opinion 27. No opinion 28. Panelists should be guided but not required to follow precedents 29. No opinion 30. 31. 32. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. Yes, it will affect their impartiality 36. No 37. Yes 38. 39. Don't know of any problems with consistency 40. No opinion 41. 42. No opinion 43. Pending application is not definitive proof 44. Fees seem high, but are probably necessary to ensure qualified Panelists 45. 46. 47. Yes, full refund 48. No 49. No 50. Don't know of any 51. No opinion 52. No opinion 53. 54. No 55. No 56. ##110########################### 1. Other Curmudgeon who thinks everyone else has it wrong 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, 13. 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. I advocate a return to the use of something like bang paths. This should create a competition among diverse models for name assignment/dispute resolution and will remove the contention over globally exclusive names. I already expect primitive versions of this approach to appear in the medium-range future; if OpenNIC's users come to want easy access to the legacy DNS colliding .biz TLD without losing the domains under OpenNIC's own .biz TLD, they might get access to it behind a .icann TLD or something -- in the bang path analogy, "...!opennic!icann!biz!...". 55. 56. I think that the notion of a privileged global exclusive namespace is doomed to be a shibboleth and that the UDRP is a patch on a broken architecture. Do what you can to limit the damage due to the present system, but don't let that distract you from pursuing prospects for a better way. ##111########################### 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 : 3 Other : 1, 4. Yes. The guidelines are straightforward and very easy to follow. 5. Yes, I have only had quite good decisions so far, although I must admit I have read other cases where I think the panelists' discussions and reasoning behind the decision have been a bit poor. 6. No. 7. We have always been representing our Clients. 8. No. 9. I have never been on the Respondent's side. 10. No. 11. No, all the names we have challenged so far have been transferred smoothely. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 5 Language : 5 Other : 1, In some cases, our Clients have instructed us to try to buy back the names for a prices less than a UDRP filing, and we have managed to do that. 13. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. Yes, but only under very specific circumstances, such as new facts in the case etc. 15. Yes, but only under very specific circumstances, such as new facts in the case etc. 16. Under no circumstances. 17. Yes, I do find them adequate. 18. Not that I can think of. 19. Yes, they should in order to minimize the differences between the Providers. 20. Yes, to increase the transparency of the process. 21. Only after the decision has been communicated to the parties. 22. Yes, for study purposes it is great to have the decisions available. 23. The decisions should be in the public domain so that you can see how the panelists have reasoned and come to their conclusions. Transparency again. 24. Yes, but only if the circumstances change, e.g. if Respondent puts up a website that can harm the Complainant. 25. I don't think a Complainant should have any limits for withdrawing a complaint. 26. No, it's enough that Complainant must show that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. 27. Not necessarily. 28. Yes, in order to create and maintain some kind of legal security. The consistency of deci 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. ##112########################### 1. Panelist CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution 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. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. For matters of form, amendment should be permitted. For matters of substance, the written record must be complete 15. 16. I would not permit transfer once the provider is chosen. 17. I find them adequate 18. 19. Uniformity would benefit users and reduce the incentive for forum shopping among providers 20. They should be available to the public as part of the record. This would put into better perspective the final decision. 21. Mandatory, upon publication of the final decision. 22. Yes, to serve as a convenient repository of precedent so future decisions are better informed. 23. Public domain, just as other public decisions are public domain. 24. I have permitted re-filing when entering a default ruling where the complaint does not properly allege all elements. Otherwise, No. 25. Permit withdrawal until the response has been served. Thereafter, the matter should go to completion. 26. No. It would seriously complicate these proceedings. The parties should pursue parallel court proceedings for those issues. 27. Yes, to avoid continuous refilings by dissatisfied parties. 28. Nonbinding precedent, along the lines of stare decisis. Only the rules themselves should bind the arbitrator. 29. Yes, because the quality of arbitrators is not uniformly excellent and people will make mistakes. 30. A 3-member panel not including the arbitrator(s) below. A fixed fee (~$20K) and only on the written record below. 31. None 32. There should be no restrictions, but a sunset provision after 1-2 years to see what impact the process has made. 33. Yes, but only because I can afford to take the time. 34. Yes/No 35. No, no more than arbitrators in other areas are disqualified from practice in other forums. 36. No, for same reason as #35 37. It is dealt with as best as it can given the forum and the problem 38. 39. There SEEMS to be a problem, arising out of nonuniform views or personal prejudices among decision makers. 40. No, the entire commercial impression should be considered as that underlies the issue of consumer confusion 41. A nonlimiting list would be helpful, to guide the proper legal analysis 42. Either should suffice, as it is hard to imagine bad faith registration followed by good faith use but not vice versa 43. I have decided a case based on solid evidence of a common law trademark. Contrariwise, an ITU application should have no weight 44. They should be higher. 45. See 44 46. See 44 47. No 48. No 49. No 50. No 51. No opinion 52. No opinion 53. 54. Court proceedings are a good adjunct to UDRP 55. No 56. ##113########################### 1. Constituency Member self 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. Neither, provider should be selected randomly 14. no. delays matters 15. no. delays matters 16. none 17. adequate 18. none needed 19. there should be uniformity 20. yes, public has the right to know 21. mandatory 22. yes,a la westlaw 23. should be public domain 24. no 25. no 26. yes. the illustrations you mention should be allowed 27. yes 28. yes 29. no 30. 31. 32. 33. insufficient time. neutral should have opportunity to think it through. 34. yes, no 35. yes 36. yes 37. yes 38. 39. yes, i don't know 40. yes 41. 42. ues 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##114########################### 1. Other Representative of complainant(s) 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 : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 6, 4. Yes, the UDRP Rules and the Provider's supplemental rules provided clear instructions. However, I am concerned about the number of cases in which the parties are being allowed to submit additional arguments/evidence despite the fact that neither set of rules provides for same. 5. Yes. The panelist considered all the evidence submitted by both parties, weighed it, and reached a reasoned decision. 6. No. 7. I was counsel for complainant and will be counsel in upcoming UDRP proceedings 8. No. 9. 10. No. My client was the winning party in the UDRP decision. 11. Yes, the client/Complainant experienced extraordinary difficulties with the Registrar, Network Solutions, Inc. In my opinion, they acted imcompetent. The client/Complainant had to submit the decision three (3) times to NSI because they continued to "lose" track of the client's/Complainant's transfer request. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 4 Other : 1, Client choose not to file Complaint. 13. Complainant 14. Yes. If the Complaint fails to meet the filing criteria, e.g., wrong Registrar identified; if the Respondent raises new issues (reverse domain name hijacking) that must be addressed by the Complainant. 15. Yes, but only under limited circumstances; for instance, if the Complainant amended their Complaint. 16. I cannot think of any circumstances under which a party should be able to transfer a UDRP case from one Provider to another Provider. 17. I believe the notice provisions are adequate as long as the parties, and in particular, the Respondents, provide current and correct information about themselves. 18. No. 19. Substantively and to some extent, yes, they should be uniform. The supplemental rules must provide for the consideration of the same elements in reaching a decision%2 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. ##115########################### 1. Other profesor universitario de derecho informático 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 : 1 Language : 6 Other : 1, 13. Neither, provider should be selected randomly 14. Si. Siempre y cuando no se modifique el fondo de la demanda. El plazo debe ser muy breve, no mas de 5 días en haras de la celeridad del procedimiento 15. Si. Cuando no se modifique el fondo de la contestacion, cuando se trate de añadir hechos nuevos a los cuales no tuvo conocimiento al momento de la contestacion y en un plazo muy breve 16. Depende do como se haya seleccionado el proveedor. SI se hizo de mutuo acuerdo entonced de mutuo acuerdo podría transferires, caso contrario, deberían ser intransferibles. 17. Si. Es responsabilidad del titular mantener al día su dirección de contacto 18. 19. Si. Para evitar que la preferencia de un proveedor sobre otro se deba a la palicación de reglas. 20. Me es indiferente 21. 22. Si. Es indispensable para los accionantes y para el público en general interesado en la materia 23. Son del dominio público como decisiones que son y que han sido realizadas por los panelistas a cambio del pago de honorarios 24. No. Caso contrario no sería un arbitraje como el que debería ser (y que no es) 25. Si. Una vez notificado el demandado no debería haber posibilidad de retirar una demanda ya que se ha hecho incurrir en gastos al demandado 26. 27. 28. Si. Aún cuando hayan decisiones que no sean buenas, las mas de 300 que existen actualmente son un precedente importante 29. No. El proceso perdería su esencia de ser rápido 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Si. Es un principio de ética profesional 36. Si. NUevamente, es un principio de ética profesional 37. No. Se estarían metiendo en problemas marcarios diferentes al fin de UDRP que son los nombres de dominio 38. No. 39. 40. No. Derería aplicarse a los parecid 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##116########################### 1. Complainant WIPO 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 4, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 6 Experience of Panelists : 6 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 1, Familiarity with WIPO's procedure 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No 7. I was Counsel 8. No 9. N/A 10. No - never had occasion to do so 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 6 Language : 6 Other : 1, Transfer is inadequate to deal with serial cybersquatter. Injunction necessary. UDRP not appropriate for marginal cases. 13. Other It should not matter. The provider's procedures ought to be identical. 14. Only to deal with trivia - the procress must remain simple and quick, allowing for amendment will encourage slackness in formulation of complaints. 15. Ditto 16. Only in circumstances where provider has shown itself to be partial - I suspect the procedure would have to be an appeal/petition to ICANN. 17. OK, so far as I am aware. 18. I do not know whether this is the relevant place to mention it, but I believe that a finding of reverse domain hijacking ought to lead to a sanction. 19. Yes - see answer to 13 above - there should be no need to forum shop. 20. It would simplify the task of the panelist - the Decision could link to the pleading rather than call for the panelist to produce a summary. 21. I do not understand the question - if "19" should read "20", at the time the decision is rendered. 22. Yes - for reasons of transparency and consistency. 23. In the public domain. For the above reason. 24. Only where (a) the panel behaved improperly (b) the Respondent filed materially false evidence or (c) new evidence of materiality to the decision has become available since the first decisions. 25. No, subject to forfeiture of the fee. 26. To my mind paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP should be a defence to paragraph 4(a)(iii). The Complainant should not have to proved 4(a)(ii). 27. No. There should be no subsequent proceedings save in circumstances outlined at 24 above. 28. No - too many di 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. ##117########################### 1. Other Patent & Trademark 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 : 4 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 3 Other : 1, 13. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. Yes, 15. Yes 16. If Provider represents both complainant and respondent interests 17. The notice provisions under the UDRP are adequate 18. No 19. Yes 20. No 21. 22. Yes 23. The decisions should be in the public domain 24. No 25. No 26. Laches, acquiescence, domain name is a generic term should be included 27. Yes 28. Yes 29. No 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. No 36. Yes 37. Yes 38. 39. No 40. Yes 41. 42. Yes 43. 44. Yes 45. 46. Yes 47. No 48. No 49. Yes 50. No 51. Yes 52. No 53. 54. No 55. No 56. ##118########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 3 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 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. yes, mainly due to the model complaint 5. yes 6. no 7. no, as we as Trademark Dept. have sufficient know how 8. no 9. 10. no 11. yes (immaterial), but due to an error on our side 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant 14. yes, with a short deadline, if otherwise the complaint would have to be rejected. The complainant should be allowed to correct errors to avoid decisions based on wrong facts 15. yes, see 14 mutatis mutandis 16. yes, as an exception, if the provider fails to handle the case within a reasonable time frame (to be defined) 17. substantially yes; it could be discussed to delete the paper form notification requirement. It is up to the parties to give reliable e-mail contact details 18. Not in WIPO rules, others are not known to us 19. no, competition should be allowed 20. yes, that could reduce statements in bad faith 21. mandatory after decision 22. yes, for the sake of consistency of decisions 23. general rules of copyright should be followed as long as free citation is not made unduly difficult 24. yes, if he shows new evidence 25. no 26. yes, in order to avoid decision obviously based on wrong facts 27. no 28. yes, but as a matter of fact only. Precedents should not bind legally. 29. No. The proceedings should be short. The option to bring the matter to ordinary courts suffices 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. yes, otherwise the reutation of the providers could be jeopardized 36. No, that would not be realistic with regard to the big law firms 37. no opinion 38. 39. no 40. no, that should be judged according to general principles 41. no 42. no, usually domain grabbers do not use the domain 43. it should suffice unless the defendant shows that it will be likely to be rejected 44. yes 45. 46. I guess yes 47. yes, full 48. no 49. no, useless and time consuming 50. no 51. no opinion 52. yes, see 53 53. yes, for reasons of easy obtaining decisions 54. no 55. no 56. no opinion ##119########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 4 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 6 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 6 Other : 1, 4. yes; date enforcement and penalties inconsistent and unclear; amendment procedures unclear and inconsistent 5. panelists follow their own legal/political view; panelists pick and choose which if any prior rulings are controlling 6. no 7. not applicable 8. impossible to search registration of domain names by registrant accross all registrars 9. not applicable 10. no 11. not applicable 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 6 Other : 1, 13. Neither, provider should be selected randomly 14. yes; to provide further evidence to overcome claims made by respondent; need to add procedures regarding amendments 15. yes; to provide informaiton requested by panelist; to overcome amendments to complaint 16. only if a conflict can be shown with written or other documentary proof 17. yes; but registrars need to better police the accuracy of registration information 18. yes; WIPO -- provisions for amending complaints/responses, penalties/results of missed dates, requirements for panelists and parties to adhere to dates (and possible recovery therefrom) 19. yes; prevent forum shopping; provide even playing field to parties among providers 20. no; should be kept confidential to avoid promulgation of false and defamatory information promoted by the parties 21. not applicable 22. yes, but only if there is going to be precedential effect accorded to decisions by panelists and to give the public at large the ability to gauge whether their actions may be an offense and to gauge the chances of success of a current pending matter in vi 23. public domain; see response to 22 24. yes: if a party can succeed in showing an egregious decision was issued by the panel(ist); changed web site content 25. no; should allow withdrawal up until date a ruling is due to be issued; promotes settlement; allows for filing of traditional law suit when it becomes clear that facts are too murky for a useful decision under the UDRP 26. no as to laches and acquiescence as many domain names are held and not used as web sites which leads many mark holders to monitor and wait for a domain name to be used, even if it has been offered for sale, until taking any action (it is not cost effectiv 27. only if no changes to web site/circumstances/use of domain name/facts 28. yes, to provide the parties and all web users confidence in the UDRP, providers and panelists 29. yes, when a ruling has issued that is contrary to prior precedential UDRP decisions and/or shows egregious errors on its face 30. permanent appeal board/panel/department set up within each provider; paid for by appellant 31. none/minimal, as all facts derive from the pleadings and accompanying documentary exhibits 32. only if an egregious reading of the facts or failure to adhere to prior precedential opinions 33. not applicable 34. not applicable 35. yes: if too many successful appeals result from the panelist's ruling (could be based on a combination of a raw number of cases successfully appealed and percentage of cases heard) 36. no; just need the panelist/firm to perform good in-house conflict checking comparing the parties of disputes and the firm's clients 37. no answer 38. no answer 39. yes; example is the effect of a respondent's failure to file a response on the complainant's burden of proof; need to have all UDRP decisions well indexed and readily available online to all providers/panelists and the world; appeals process will also he 40. yes, so long as the mark in some form (be it correct, mis-spelled, included with other terms) appears in the domain name 41. not applicable 42. no; registration in bad faith is often a fallacy; registration in bad faith is often presumed based on bad faith use; what should be done when there is registration and no use? is this bad faith? some say yes, others say no. need to deal with this issu 43. not sufficient proof; just a factual factor to be considered; if complainant has a pending mark but respondent can so prior use of a similar mark, pending applicaiotn for a mark surely should not be suffient proof of anything (particularly if the applicat 44. yes 45. not applicable 46. no answer 47. yes; complainant should be required to reimburse the respondent 48. no; but rules should state that the effect of default should be that all of complainant's allegations are deemed admitted/true 49. no; but UDRP coul dbe amended to require that attempts by complainant to contact repsondent and the result of such contact be plead in a complaint 50. no answer 51. no answer 52. onloy if the ccTLD is being used for commercial purposes and only if the ccTLD allows for registration by entities not doing business in or otherwise associated with the particular country (e.g., .tv and .cc) 53. yes, when there is a commonality between the respondent and the content of any infringing web sites 54. no 55. no 56. no answer ##120########################### 1. Panelist eRes, WIPOacademic research 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Other : 1, I have advised client not to use UDRP because alternative means were quicker, cheaper and more reliable (issuing C&D, filing complaint in court). 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 1 Other : 1, I was not the Complainant and had no choice in selection of Provider. 4. Much of process is unclear or unknowable, but I was able to follow the instructions for submission of documents. 5. Yes. I won. 6. No. 7. I was counsel for the Respondent. 8. Yes. Old web pages no longer accessible. Response time not sufficient to acquire official copy of trademark registration to support defense of legitimate right and interest.. 9. Not applicable 10. Yes. UDRP decision was inconsistent with legal principles that applied to both parties. 11. Not applicable. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 3 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 6 Other : 1, See #2 13. Both Complainant and Respondent 3-member panels most appropriate for all decisions until such time as a more uniform level of expertise is required. 14. Yes. For response to any new charge/fact raised in the Response. Within 7 days of receipt of Response. 15. Only if new charge/fact is raised in rebuttal or oficial copies of evidence, cited but not supplied, in original Response (i.e. copy of tm registration) is now available. 16. 17. Respondent should have more time to respond. 18. There should be a limit on the number of attachments/exhibits that can be added to the Complaint and Response (many cases involve hundreds of pages of documentation such as irrelevant corporate annual reports and copies of dozens of trademark registrations where one or two would be sufficient). Suggest number be limited to 20 pages. Any internal policies or practices should be revealed, such as the policy on selection of presiding panelists. 19. No. I'd like to see some competition in the provision of services a 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. ##121########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 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. 11. No 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 5 Other : 1, Handling by formal Court system with ability to appeal decision. 13. Complainant Complainant, as most Plaintiffs, should be allowed to select the Provider. Only if the Respondent can show good cause (provable corruption, bias, etc.) should a Motion with specific facts and allegations to ICANN be permited seeking to change Providers. 14. Yes, as long as it does not unduly delay the trial. Every developed legal system allows this and it assists in arriving at a decision on the merits. 15. Yes, every developed legal system allows this and it assists in arriving at a decision on the merits. 16. Rarely if ever. Only if the Respondent can show good cause (provable corruption, bias, etc.) should a Motion with specific facts and allegations to ICANN be permited seeking to change Providers. Why, when the process is electronic, would you want to do this? Because you think you will get a more favorable result - as with certain providers. Forum shopping wihtout basis in fact or law is pretty corrupting, especially when dealing with start up companies desperate to get business. We are not talking about developed Court systems. 17. Yes - they are very clear and reasoanble. 18. No 19. Yes - consistency of results is critical for long term credibility. 20. Yes - in the vast majority of cases making them public helps in both credibiltiy and understanding the results. 21. Mandatory immediatley. 22. Yes - see 20. 23. Public - see 20. 24. No - if this is an issue, establish an appeals system. There shoudl be one anyway to promote consistently good decisions. 25. Only if a hearing is imminent. 26. Yes - as long as they are generally known in developed legal systems. 27. Yes 28. Yes- it is the only way to develop consistent deci 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. ##122########################### 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. 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. ##123########################### 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. 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. ##124########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 3 Provider's supplemental rules : 4 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 2 Other : 1, 4. "YES" had studied the rules in advance. 5. "YES" and based on the background provided 6. "NONE" 7. "YES" 8. "NO" 9. " NO MERIT IN OWN CASE OR UDRP HAS NO FORMAL APPROVAL IN OUR COUNTRY AS A COURT OF LAW 10. "NO" 11. "YES. I HAD TO REMIND OUR COUNSEL AND IN TURN WIPO OFFICE, REGISTRAR TO TRANSFER DOMAIN NAME WITHOUT DELAY. THIS TAKES ABOUT 6 MONTHS TIME 12. Cost of Proceedings : 4 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 4 Language : 3 Other : 1, 13. Neither, provider should be selected randomly 14. "YES. IF SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND TIME SHOWN BASED ON APPLICATION AND CONSIDERING NATURE OF EVIDENCE 15. "YES. IF SUFFICIENT CAUSE OF TIME SHOWN BASED ON APPLICATION AND CONSIDERING NATURE OF EVIDENCE 16. ON SERIOUS CHARGE & EVIDENCE OF FAVOUR / APPARANT CONNECTION / INTEREST 17. "YES" 18. "NO" 19. "YES" 20. "NO - BUT IF PROPER CAUSE IS SHOWN NO HARM IN SUPPLYING COPIES" 21. - 22. "YES. FOR ENHANCED ACCEPTANCE, RECONGNIATION & ACCESSIBILITY" 23. "BOTH AS IT LOOKS MORE TRANSPARANT & ESTABLISHES RATIONAL OF DECISIONS 24. " NO, UNLESS EVIDENCE & GROSS INJUSTICE IS SHOWN . BUT RESTORATION OF DEFAULTED COMPLAINT BE ALLOWED 25. "NO. UNLESS GROUND EXIST. PENALTY BE IMPOSED 26. " NO. IT WILL ENCOURAGE DISHONEST PERSONS TO GRAB WELL-KNOWN MARKS & TERMS FOR SELF - GAIN 27. "YES. BUT IT SHOULD BE LEFT TO PANELIST TO CONSIDER 28. "YES. FOR CONSISTENCY & CONFIDENCE BUILDING 29. MAY BE 30. 3 - 5 PANELIST AT CENTRAL PLACE BOTH PARTIES TO FINANCE 31. CAN'T SAY 32. GROSS INJUSTICE / EVIDENCE NOT CONSIDERED FRAUD 33. "NO" 34. "NO" 35. "YES - INTERESTED IN CLIENT WORK" 36. "YES" 37. "NO" 38. "CAN'T SAY' 39. GIVE MORE TRAINING & CIRCULATE ALL DECISION TO PANELISTS 40. NOT NECESSARILY IN VIEW CHANGING TECHNOLOGY 41. "YES. EXPERT EVIDENCE" 42. "NO. ONE IS SUFF 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##125########################### 1. Other Making people aware that authorities know the solution 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, Please excuse me not answering questions about this fatally flawed system - it would be waste of time. 13. 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. I feel UDRP advocates are stupid - or corrupt and excel at spin. It could be greatly improved by removal and bringing in restricted TLDs. ##126########################### 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 : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, Never decided against filing complaint 13. Complainant 14. Yes, if fairness and the circumstances require it. The standard should be the same as regular litigation 15. Yes, same as above 16. Should not be able to 17. 18. 19. Yes 20. Yes 21. mandatory 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. ##127########################### 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. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. No. It would slow proceedings 15. No. It would slow prceedings. 16. none 17. 18. No 19. Yes, for more consistent results. 20. No. Unnecessary disclosure of private information. 21. 22. Yes. Convenience and thorough legal research. 23. Public domain. 24. No. Res judicata. 25. Yes, but with prejudice. 26. Yes, all of the above. 27. Yes. 28. Yes. 29. No. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Yes 36. No 37. 38. 39. 40. yes 41. 42. Either 43. Only a registration. 44. yes 45. 46. 47. yes. Full 48. No. 49. No 50. No 51. No 52. Yes 53. Yes 54. No 55. No 56. ##128########################### 1. Panelist AIPLA 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 : 3 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 3 Other : 1, 13. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. Yes, but only once to ensure that form does not take over substance but at the same time not giving the Complaintant too many bites at the apple. 15. Yes, but only once to ensure that form does not take over substantive arguments. 16. When it is discovered the that Provider is not neutral. Both parties must agree and should start back from square one. 17. 18. 19. Yes, provides for a fair process where parties do not "shop" for the most advantageous rules but rather "shop" for the most qualified Provider. 20. No, each dispute is unique in many respects and both parties should consent before the dispute is publicly accessible. 21. 22. Yes, easy of searching for opinions is key to uniform application of rules. 23. Public domain because the decisions may be used for precedential value. 24. No second chance at the apple should be premitted after a case goes to completion but there should be appeal rights. 25. Withdrawal of complaint should be done with prejudice to the Complainant's claim. 26. Yes, this allows for a full discussion of the case and gives parties full discretion to use legal doctrines. 27. Yes. 28. Yes, this creates a uniform body of authority and allows for minimal inconsistencies. 29. Yes, broad appeal rights are important to ensure the Providers stay within the bounds of their charge. 30. 3 Providers is adequate for an appeals panel and if possible should be heard by a single, centralized institution that did not play a role in the initial decision. The party seeking the appeal should pay for 2/3 of the cost with the remaining 1/3 going to the appeal who is forced into the appeal process. 31. Initial panel determinations should be given deference with the appellate panel only reversing on clear grounds of error. 32. Right to appeal is not automatic and a time frame should be established as an appeals window with any party not filing an appeal within the permitted time period automatically losing their right to appeal. 33. 34. 35. Yes, this provides for a solid group of individuals who have no stake in the winners and therefore the Provider does not feel that he has to rule a certain way in orer to get a favorable treatment when he is representing parties before the UDRP and another Provider. 36. Yes, because the law firm as a financial stake in the proceeding and the panelists' neutrality is in question. This must be done at tall time and under all circumstances. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. No, this is the cost of doing business unless the dispute was brought to harass the respondent. 48. No, complainant must still prove their case even if the respondent defaults. 49. No, mediation should be optional, not mandatory. 50. No. 51. 52. Yes, because this ensures a common foundation for all parties, including Providers, so that there are no surprises and a level playing field is establiahed. 53. Yes, this ensures that the same Provider hears all complaints related to the same parties at one time. 54. 55. 56. ##129########################### 1. Other representante de demandados y asesor 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 : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 3 Other : 1, 4. Sí a pesar de que las modificaciones de tasas y reglamentarias no fueron comunicadas explícitamente 5. En algunos casos no tuvieron en consideración el objetivo que hay en el UDRP y ejercieron únicamente como jueces 6. no 7. eramos representantes legales 8. Es evidente que aportar pruebas de mala fe no es fácil, especialmente teniendo en consideración que Internet permite la sutilidad de los daños y UDRP no lo evita 9. 10. 11. Sí ha ocurrido en dos ocasiones que el demandado ha podido manipular los datos en el periodo de diez días en los que el demandado podría acudir a Tribunales pero fue INCOMPATIBILIDAD de algun registrador 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant 14. Sí ya que en el periodo de tiempo que se está tramitando la página web tampoco es objeto de bloqueo 15. no, porque es clara la posición del damandado desde el principio 16. no 17. sí 18. Considero que algo a modificar es que los tres condicionantes de presentación de una demanda mediante UDRP deberían tener unas lineas interpretativas claras de acuerdo con el objetivo a conseguir y sería precisable qué es marca registrada 19. 20. no, ya disponen de ellas los interesados 21. 22. sí 23. Deben ser de dominio público ya que bajo unas directrices públicas se ha resuelto y, además, los mismos panelistas son elegidos o aconsejados en el organismo público 24. Debería tener la posibilidad de recurrir ante un panel de tres personas SIEMPRE 25. NO 26. SÍ 27. orientativos 28. SÍ 29. SI 30. mismo proveedor pero en un panel de tres personas con las tasas que se fijan actualmente 31. Que se respetara el objetivo inicial de UDRP 32. sí 33. 34. 35. Sólo en aquellos casos que las denominaciones o los titulares fueran incompatibles pero considerando las oficinas o bufetes dónde e 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##130########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 2, One world wide venue 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 5. Yes 6. In a .biz complaint, I had to provide evidence from a Korean registrar (his address, his general conditions) 7. I am a counsel 8. Yes see question 6 9. 10. Yes, after a Belgian UDRP decision from a local provider, because of a poor decision refusing the transfer 11. No 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 6 Quality of decisions : 6 Language : 6 Other : 1, If I want to claim damages I prefer a court case 13. Complainant 14. Yes, to respond to the Repondent's response 15. Yes, to answer to the Complainant's amended complaint. Respondent should have the last word 16. 17. Adequate 18. No 19. 20. No, only the decisions is okay, because this is also true for regular court cases (at least in my country, Belgium) 21. 22. Yes, transparency is important in legal matters 23. Public domain, the law should be available at no cost to anyone 24. Yes, if the factual context has changed 25. No limits 26. Those defenses are now reflected in the absence of bad faith, which is perfect 27. 28. Yes, as regular arguments, but not as binding precedents 29. No, regular court cases are the appeal 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. No, they better gain experience from their cases 36. No 37. 38. 39. Not really 40. Yes 41. 42. No 43. 44. They are okay 45. 46. They are okay 47. No, the respondent will win his case, which is what he wants 48. 49. NO 50. 51. No 52. Yes 53. Yes 54. 55. The Belgian ".be" UDRP which is very similar to ICANN's but now includes trade names, geographic names, names of physical persons 56. ##131########################### 1. Other speedy adjudication of rights involving trademarks 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 : 5 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 4 Other : 1, 13. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. Yes, to resolve all issues involved in the proceedings as long as the fact was newly discovered in good faith. 15. Yes, to resolve all issues involved in the proceedings as long as the fact was newly discovered in good faith. 16. If it is for the convenience of both parties. The moving party should get the written consent of the other party. 17. Yes. 18. No. 19. Yes, to avoid forum-shopping and to be able to provide consistent rulings. 20. Yes. To appraise and guide the public as to the possible arguments they can submit and the possible rulings they may obtain by submitting a particular argument. 21. After the decision has been rendered. 22. Yes, it is more convenient to everyone concerned. 23. In the public domain name to at least serve as reference even if not precedential. 24. Yes, if there are material changes that were not prevailing during the previous proceedings. 25. Yes, the withdrawal should not cause undue prejudice to the defendant. 26. Yes, laches and acquiescence. So rights to domain names would not be hanging in the air. 27. Yes so long as there is no material change in the circumstances. 28. Yes, to promote uniformity and predictability in the resolutions of cases. 29. No 30. 31. 32. 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. Yes, to avoid any appearance of impropriety which would, in turn, accord respect to the proceedings. 36. Yes, the appearance of conflict of interest cannot be avoided in such a scenario. 37. Yes 38. N/A 39. Yes, among panelists and providers. The UDRP should be amended to give precedential value to prior resolutions. 40. Yes. 41. N/A 42. No. Either circumstance shows that the domain name is not being sought for legitimate purposes. 43. T 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##132########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 4 Other : 3, Ease of filing 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 2 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 4 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes 5. Impartial - yes. Experienced - somewhat 6. No 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. 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. ##133########################### 1. Constituency Member IPC 2. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 1 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 : 1 Other : 1, 4. Yes. No problems following the rules 5. yes 6. no 7. we were counsel 8. no 9. 10. no 11. no 12. Cost of Proceedings : 2 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Language : 4 Other : 1, case is not the right type 13. Complainant 14. yes but rarely if circumstances change 15. yes but rarely if circumstances change 16. none 17. yes 18. no 19. not necessarily 20. yes for precedent 21. mandatory 22. yes for precedent and to encrage consistency 23. public domain 24. no 25. no 26. yes any equitable defences 27. in certain circumstances 28. yes 29. no it will chenge the basic premise if speed and cost effectiveness 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. use ethical rules 36. use ethical rules 37. yes 38. 39. not any different from court decisions 40. no 41. no 42. no only one or the other would be sufficient 43. if there is use or proof on intended use 44. probably too low 45. raise them to reflect the amount of work involved 46. too low 47. no 48. no 49. no 50. no 51. no too complicated 52. yes consistency 53. yes consistency 54. no 55. no 56. ##134########################### 1. Respondent 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 : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. 5. No. The panelists did not appear to be proficient in nuances of trademark law. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 6 Other : 1, Proficiency of Panelists 13. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Yes. Prevent forum shopping. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Yes 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. ##135########################### 1. Constituency Member Trademark ownersI represent trademark owners regularly in domain name proceedings 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 2 Provider's supplemental rules : 2 Experience of Panelists : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. Yes, except with regard to the filing of exhibits with the Complaint that cannot be scanned without difficulty. 5. On average yes. A few WIPO panelists, however, appear to have an agenda. 6. No. 7. N/A 8. Not except for the issue addressed in response to #4 above. 9. 10. No. No need to. 11. No. All transfers have been handled smoothly and efficiently. Registrars should be commended on their cooperation with the process. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 5 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 5 Other : 1, 13. Complainant 14. Yes, provided new evidence comes to light that Complaint could not reasonably have discovered at the time of filing the Complaint or Respondent's response requires further or different arguments/evidence to support the Complaint. 15. Yes, but only in response to new arguments or evidence advanced by Complainant in an additional submission or evidence newly discovered that could not reasonably have been discovered at the time of filing the Response. 16. None. 17. Yes. 18. No. 19. No need for it. The variations in the rules is part of the decision in which provider to select to hear the matter. 20. Yes. 21. Mandatory, at the time of filing. 22. Yes. Having access to the decisions greatly aids finding authority to support actions under the UDRP. 23. Public domain. 24. Yes, provided new evidence comes to light, or the complainant loses for failure to meet evidentiary or similar concerns of the panelist that can easily be corrected. (For example, I think refiling should be permitted in a case such as one against John Zuccarini where the panelist said it is clear the respondent is Zuccarini, but not clear that it is the same Zuccarini who has lost a number of ICANN proceedings. This failure is one important reason the complainant 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. ##136########################### 1. Other ccTLD Registry, and operator of a domain name dispute resolution service 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 The Complainant. However, ICANN should be aware that some providers are viewed as particularly "complinanant friendly" and should address this. 14. No, as it gives complainants the opportunity to improve their position and goes against the cost effectiveness and speed of the UDRP service. However, complainants should be given the opportunity to submit a Reply to any new issues raised by the Respondent's response. 15. No, as it gives respondents the opportunity to improve their position. 16. Only in exceptional circumstances, for instance if a conflict of interest arises as between one of the parties and the original provider. It is suggested that a published policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of potential grounds for a transfer. A suggested process is that the party seeking a change of provider supply a submission of an application to transfer (which is limited in length), and that there be a mechanism for an independent decision on each application. 17. Yes, but the obligation to send each item of correspondence by every one of the methods outlined in the rules can become cumbersome once contact with the Respondent has been established. There should be more flexibility in that the parties should be able to appoint a fast track means of response. 18. 19. 20. No, so long as the decision recounts the factual background and the parties' submissions. The objective should be to make the decision a standalone document. If it became necessary to read not only the decision but also the parties' submissions in order to gain the full background to a dispute, it would become unduly onerous for prospective parties, their advisers and 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. ##137########################### 1. Other Counsel for complainants 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 1 Provider's supplemental rules : 1 Experience of Panelists : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. The process was sufficiently clear. 5. The panelists in most instances appeared impartial, although one panelist gratuitously and unjustifiably implied bad faith in preparing the complaint. The outcome in that instance was understandable, but the tone of the decision was felt to be inappropriate. 6. No difficulties. 7. We acted as counsel for several complainants. 8. The primary difficulty in presenting a complainant’s case lies in the inability to conduct discovery, in conjunction with the requirement that the complainant prove lack of legitimate rights and bad faith registration and use. In many instances, it is impossible to meet this burden without the benefit of discovery. This difficulty is greatly compounded by the fact that panelists have different views of the degree of proof required. See, e.g., Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, (WIPO No. D2000-0624, Aug. 21, 2000). Some panelists unfairly require a complainant to provide affirmative proof of lack of legitimate rights and bad faith registration and use even if the respondent defaults on the complaint. Especially in the absence of any discovery, this requires the complainant to prove a negative, and is essentially an impossible task. Other panelists specifically consider the respondent’s failure to demonstrate its rights under UDRP Paragraph 4(c) when evaluating the compl! ! ainant’s evidence. Still others require the complainant only to make a prima facie showing, and then shift the burden to the respondent to provide concrete evidence of its legitimate rights to the domain. In the absence of any discovery (and any right to reply to a response), the latter approach is the most acceptable. Unfortunately, the language of UDRP Paragraph 4(a) does not require this approach, with the result that many panelis 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : Speed of Proceedings : Quality of decisions : Language : Other : , 13. 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. ##138########################### 1. Panelist Japan Intellectual Property Arbitration Center 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 : 1 Other : 6, 13. Complainant 14. should not be allowed, because of speed up the procedure. However, clearly misspelling case could be allowed. 15. should not be allowed. 16. should not be transferable. 17. yes 18. supple mental rules should be placed in UDRP Rule. 19. yes 20. not necessary. too complex. 21. 22. yes 23. should be public domain 24. no 25. should be allowed only before appointment of panelists. 26. no 27. yes 28. yes 29. no, within the service provider. That role should be domestic courts 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. no 36. yes 37. I cannot make any comments 38. 39. UDRP case decisions should be adequately analysed. 40. only physical appearence is adequate. 41. 42. registration "or" use should be adequate. 43. fact of trademark registration is enough 44. yes 45. 46. yes 47. hald of the fee 48. no 49. no 50. yes 51. yes 52. should be uniform in principle, however, it does not matter in detail aspects. 53. yes, only if the language problem could be adequately resolved. 54. nothing should be described 55. no 56. langueage problem. Especially the dot com domain case between Japanese applicant versus Japanese registrant could be treated in Japanese language and by Japanese panelists. Because traslating proofs into English is time consuming and crazy in such cases. ##139########################### 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. 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. ##140########################### 1. Other Advising the Company 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, No 13. Complainant 14. Yes 15. Yes 16. chaos 17. ???????????? 18. ????????????? 19. Yes 20. Yes 21. At any time 22. No 23. Public Domain 24. ???????????? 25. ???????????? 26. Yes 27. Yes 28. Yes 29. Yes 30. ????????????? 31. ????????? 32. ????????? 33. Make time to review 34. ??????????? 35. ?????????? 36. No 37. No 38. ???????????? 39. Yes 40. No 41. No Rely on trademark law 42. Registration should be made in good faith 43. Certaity of registration 44. ?????????????? 45. ???????????? 46. ???????????? 47. ?????????????? 48. ??????????????????? 49. ?????????????? 50. Yes 51. ????????? 52. ???????????? 53. ???????????? 54. Shoot Them 55. NO 56. ???????????? ##141########################### 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 : 3 Speed of Proceedings : 4 Quality of decisions : 2 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Complainant Provided however that the respondent may demand the transfer of the case to other provider under a certain condition. 14. Yes,but only one time by complainnants or upon the request of panelists. 15. Yes,but only when requested by panelists. 16. Grounds for the transfer should be limited to the cases where there exists any appearance of bias or where the parties agree to do so. 17. Yes. 18. No. 19. No,I don't think it is necessary to be uniform. Since they are bound by the basic rules set forth in the ICANN Policy and Rules,they should be free to provide their supplemental rules. This freedom will contribute the improvement of the UDRP. 20. No,it is sufficient to make public the decision only. The procedure is a kind of ADR and accordingly unless there exists a special circumstance the confidentiality should be kept. 21. 22. Yes,it is convenient for interested parties to make search on prior decisions. 23. I think that taking into consideration the nature of the domain name the decision will be in the public domain.l 24. Yes,I think a complainant may freely re-file because the UDRP is simple and the chance to challenge should be given to him. But in frivolous or abusive cases the costs and expense the respondent has spent shall be borne by the complainant. 25. No. 26. No.the UDRP should be as simple as possible and ,therefore,such affirmative defense should not be permitted. Otherwise,such defense will cause difficult and complicated issue such as the conflict of law issue. 27. No,the same reason as mentioned in 24. 28. No. The panelist should not be bound by .but consider prior decisions. 29. No. 30. 31. 32. 33. I am listed as a panelist roster,but no experience in serving as a panelist. I think the time is tight,but is likely to be sufficient. 34. Maybe yes. 35. No,as a rule panelists should be allowed to present a case unless it violate his professional ethics. 36. No,needless to say,panelists cannot handle the case represented by a lawyer in the same law firm. 37. Generally speaking,yes. 38. 39. There are some inconsistent cases,but this problem is not serious and will be resolved gradually. 40. Yes. 41. 42. 43. If the complainant is substantially using the trademark without any trademark infringement. 44. The current fee amount is likely to be reasonable,but it should vary depending upon the complexity of each case,for example whether disputed by the respondent. 45. The same answer as stated in above 44. 46. The same answer as stated in above 44. 47. Yes,the full amount should be refunded to the respondent. 48. Yes,but partially refunded to the complainant. 49. No,the UDRP should be simple and other ADR should be managed by each institution including providers ,separately from the UDRP. 50. No,for the same reason as mentioned in above 49. 51. No. 52. No,the local characteristics in each jurisdiction should be respected. 53. 54. Yes,maybe in some cases the mediation will be one of useful methods for resolving the domain dispute. 55. No. 56. In spite of various languages existing in the world,all the authorized providers are rendering their UDRP services in English. In the light of fairness, institutions which can manage the case in language other than English should be appointed as an authorized provider. ##142########################### 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. 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. ##144########################### 1. Other Law Department 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, NA 13. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. Yes, significant change of the understanding of the facts. 15. Same as #14 16. Mutual agreement or resignation 17. Unknown 18. Unknown 19. Yes, for consistency 20. Probably not 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. No, final for cost savings. 30. 31. 32. 33. NA 34. NA 35. Yes, conflict of interest 36. Depends on its conflicts. 37. Unknown 38. 39. Unknown 40. Probably yes. 41. 42. No Stop cybersquatting 43. Unknown 44. Unknown 45. Unknown 46. Unknown 47. Yes, significant if bad faith. 48. Same as 47 49. yes, it helps with negotiations. 50. Unknown 51. Unknown 52. Unknown 53. 54. Unknown 55. No, I have not used any dispute resolution mechanism 56. Unknown ##145########################### 1. Other Avocat 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. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. Oui en cas de nouveaux faits, de nouveaux documents 15. oui en cas de nouveaux documents ou de nouveaux faits 16. uniquement en cas de difficulté majeure : faute, absence d'indépendance, comme dans les cas d'arbitrage : uniquement dans des hypothèses limitées 17. oui 18. non 19. Plutot oui, il serait plus facile pour les parties 20. non pour des raison de confidentialité ou de respect de la vie privée 21. 22. oui : garantie de bonne justice et développement du droit 23. les décisions devraient être dans le domaine public car il s'agit d'une décision juridique et que les règles concernant les noms de domaine devraient être publiques et prévisibles 24. oui s'il s'agit d'un appel 25. non 26. non car il pourrait y avoir un conflit avec les juridictions étatiques 27. non car les circonstances peuvent changer 28. non car les circonstances peuvent changer 29. oui 30. Il devrait y avoir plus de membres de la Commission administrative, le même fournisseur devrait être choisit, les coûts initiaux devraient être à la charge de l'appelant et les coûts globaux à la charge du perdant 31. aucun 32. oui 33. 34. 35. oui car il y a un conflit d'intérêt 36. oui car il y a un conflit d'intérêt 37. oui 38. 39. non 40. non des similitudes intellectuelles devraient pouvoir établir que des signes sont similaires 41. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'établir une liste des facteurs, les membres de la commission sont des juristes spécialisés en marques 42. non un enregistrement de mauvaise foi implique un usage de mauvaise foi 43. non il est plus facile d'attendre que la marque soit enregistrée 44. quelque peu chers 45. un peu moins chers 46. 47. oui un remboursement complet 48. oui un remboursement complet 49. oui 50. non 51. oui 52. oui dans un souci de simplicité 53. oui dans un souci de simplicité 54. 55. non 56. ##146########################### 1. Constituency Member IPCWIPO,NAF 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 : 3 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 6, 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No, but it is an increasing problem, that many registration agreements are now in not so common languages 7. 8. A bit, but the provider (WIPO) gave goood guidance to overcome the deficiencies 9. 10. No 11. No 12. Cost of Proceedings : 6 Speed of Proceedings : 5 Quality of decisions : 4 Language : 2 Other : 1, The UDRP did not cover the situation 13. Complainant 14. Yes, each party should have the possibility of responding to the other parties submission (i.e each party should be allowed two submissions) 15. Yes, each party should have the possibility of responding to the other parties submission 16. Do not know 17. The work fine 18. - 19. Not necessarily. OK with variations within the borders of the Policy and the Rules 20. No, the content is adequately reflected in the decisions 21. 22. Yes, definately. Very important to all parties. 23. Public Domain 24. Yes, if the circumstances have changed e.g. if new evidence emerges 25. No, a complaint should always be subject to the possibility of withdrawl 26. Yes, acquiescence and genericness are just two examples 27. - 28. Prior decisions should not be "binding", but to the extent that the facts of vtwo cases are the same, the should result in the same outcome 29. Yes. I find this very important for the sake of legal certainty an thus the image of the UDRP 30. One single Appeal Body should be established with three panelists on each case. The Apellant should bear all the costs. 31. Do not know 32. All final decisions should be subject to appeal 33. Time is always a problem, but it does not help just to get addtional time 34. Yes, it is very important, and no it is not adequate at present 35. No, as long as the rules on impartiality are applied strictly 36. No, as long as the rules on impartiality are applied strictly 37. Yes, no need to elaborate f 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. ##147########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, Tactical step to make cybersquatter discuss issue. 3. Provider reputation : 4 Provider's supplemental rules : 3 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes, the process was clear. Although it was time consuming reading it all the first time, the instructions were clear and in my case WIPO were very helpful on the telephone. I'm not sure however that if you had to move quickly to file a complaint or a response and were unfamiliar with the process how user friendly they would be. 5. Yes, as to impartiality. As to experience it seems to be pot luck whether they have relevant experience and much depends on their udnerstanding of the relevant language, market place, meaning of the mark and interpretation of bad faith. 6. No, no difficulties were experienced by language barriers. 7. We are Internal Trade Mark Counsel. We did not use additional external counsel as that would be a duplication of resources. We may consider doing so if the case was particularly time consuming or complicated or if there was a language issue. 8. In the first instance it was difficult to know what type of proof would be acceptable but by looking at other examples of what had been filed and reading the decisions of panellists it became clearlier 9. 10. 11. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. 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. ##148########################### 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. 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. ##149########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 2 Quality of decisions : 3 Other : 1, Tactical step to make cybersquatter discuss issue 3. Provider reputation : 4 Provider's supplemental rules : 3 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 2 Geographical diversity of panelists : 5 Other : 1, 4. Yes, the process was clear. Although it was time consuming reading it all the first time the instructions were clear and in my case WIPO were very helpful on the telephone. I'm not sure however that if you had to move quickly to file a complaint or a response and were unfamiliar with the process how user friendly they would be. 5. Yes as to impartiality. As to experience it seems to be pot luck whether they have relevant experience and much depends on their understanding of the relevant language, marketplace, meaning of the mark and interpretation of bad faith. 6. No, no difficulties were experienced by language barriers. 7. We are internal trade mark counsel. We did not use additional external counsel as that would be a duplication of resources. We may consider doing so if the case was particularly time consuming or complicated or if there was a language issue. 8. In the first instance it was difficult to know what type of proof would be acceptable but by looking at other examples of what had been filed and reading the decisions of panellists it became clearer. Difficulty was experienced in the submitting of proof such as TM Certificate copies which are in paper form and are not readily scanned in and therefore to attach these electronically was initially difficult although not impossible once someone with the appropriate technical knowledge was found. 9. 10. Not yet. All the decisions have been in our favour. 11. Yes difficulties were experienced. These were really with time delays because it is for the respondent to initiate the request for transfer or to provide a password or make an update which obviously some are not happy to deal with quickly especially where the decision is one they think is unfair. However, the fact that the DN is on hold by the Registry un 12. Cost of Proceedings : Speed of Proceedings : Quality of decisions : Language : Other : , 13. 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. ##150########################### 1. Other concerned netizen 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. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. 15. 16. none 17. 18. 19. 20. yes. 21. mandatory 22. yes 23. public 24. 25. 26. Yes. It should never exceed complainant's rights in trademark law. e.g. Sun Oil, Sun Microsystems, ... Satire/criticism should be explicitly recognised. e.g. ibmsucks.com 27. 28. yes 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. no. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Never 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. no. cccTLDs have local law and don't need UDRP. 53. 54. 55. 56. Panelists need to get a clue. e.g. the bodacioustatas.com case should have been thrown out. There is obviously no trademark violation. ##151########################### 1. Complainant owner of trade mark rights 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, in the sense that we had an advisor run the process for us. 5. This particular decision was one of the very first ones, so expectations of experience could be nothing but low, but since we won, we were of course quite pleased. 6. no 7. yes 8. no 9. - 10. no, not necessary. 11. no. 12. Cost of Proceedings : 1 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 1 Language : 1 Other : 1, 13. Neither, provider should be selected randomly 14. of course speed is of the essence. On the other hand, both parties should be allowed to correct obvious mistakes. And both parties should be allowed a responable chance to respond to an input from the other party in case a new element is brought in. Speed in the decision should be balanced by thouroughness and justice. 15. cf. 14 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. ##152########################### 1. since I did not manage to finish, I will continue here. 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. 14. 15. 16. 17. ? 18. ? 19. ? 20. yes, openness is preferable. 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. ##153########################### 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. 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. ##154########################### 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. 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. ##155########################### 1. Complainant 2. Cost of Proceedings : 3 Speed of Proceedings : 1 Quality of decisions : 2 Other : 1, 3. Provider reputation : 3 Provider's supplemental rules : 5 Experience of Panelists : 2 Quality of decisions : 1 Geographical diversity of panelists : 4 Other : 1, 4. Yes 5. Yes. 6. No 7. Yes. 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, 13. Both Complainant and Respondent 14. No. This would dely the process. 15. No. This would delay the process. 16. No transfer should be allowed. 17. Yes. 18. No 19. Yes. 20. No. 21. 22. Yes. 23. Public domain. 24. No. There is recourse to the ordinary courts. 25. No. 26. No. 27. Yes. 28. Yes. 29. No. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Yes. 36. No provided Chinese walls exist. 37. Yes. 38. 39. Yes, depending on a panelist's home jurisdiction, decisions are based on partly conflicting legal principles. 40. 41. No. 42. No. One of the two elements is sufficient to constitute bad faith. 43. 44. Yes. 45. 46. Yes. 47. Yes, full refund. 48. No. 49. No. 50. No. 51. No. 52. Yes. 53. Yes. 54. No. 55. No 56. The evidential requirements to establish bad faith should be relaxed.The requirements to prove factual matters should be clarified in the UDRP / Supplemental Rules.