Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review - Draft Questionnaire
Ummmmmmm, can someone explain the dates to me?
If we just got started and only recently got this committee fully staffed, what
on earht is the point of having the June 20-August 14th deadline for creating
the questionnaire? Why not have a timeline that reflects reality and provides
useful imformation? Someone is sure to wonder why it took so long to create the
questionnaire. Why not simply say Oct 1-November xx?
As for the rest of the timeline, Ive been a project magager many times im my
career and I find it a bit confusing. I 'think' I can explain the overlaps, but
without actually *knowing* why I have uncertainty. The timeline also appears
fairly ambitious, so everyone feel free to tell me to shut up and get down to
substantive work ok?
"Chicoine, Caroline G." wrote:
> Per my email on Friday, this email is to provide you with a revised schedule
> (Elisabeth, can you just take these new dates from these email and modify
> Terms of Reference or do you want me to edit it and send you a revised
> The June 29-August 14th deadline for creating the questionnaire should be
> changed to June 29-November 1, 2001.
> The August 15-September 15 deadline for submitting the questionnaire to the
> public forum comment should be changed to November 2-December 15.
> The August 15-October 31 deadline for the Task Force to review results of
> questionnaire and prepare report should be changed to November 1-January 15
> The November 1-November 11 deadline for Names Council review should be
> changed to January 16-February 1.
> The November 12 deadline for NC to vote on report shall be changed to be
> the first NC teleconference after Feb 1. (we should have firm date soon)
> The November 13-December 13 deadline to schedule implementation should be
> changed to the one month period following the NC's vote.
> I am also forwarding a copy of a stab I took at a proposed Questionnaire as
> promised. Is there anyone on the list that cannot open Word attachments?
> The questionnaire includes questions based on input the interim committee
> received to date. This is just something to get us started. I have no
> presumptions that it is the right starting point or that any of it will end
> up in the final questionnaire so PLEASE do not start shooting the messenger.
> As the terms of reference mention, there were several topics that we as the
> interim committee were made of aware of and we may want to structure the
> questionnaire by subject matter for clarity. I also think that there will
> be questions that we only want certain people to answer based on their
> actual experience with the UDRP (see proposed questions directed to
> complainant/respondent and panelist/provider).
> With respect to the earlier emails regarding "UDRPs" used outside the ICANN
> process, can I recommend that the following people review the policies and
> identify the differences between them and ICANN's UDRP (I have chosen the
> following people because they come from the countries or regions to which
> these "other" UDRP apply):
> Canada - Dr. Joelle Thibault
> United Kingdom (Nominet) - Katrina Burchell
> Japan - Joon Hyung Hong
> Chile - Erick Iriarte
> Can we have a report by next Monday?
> We should continue to do this for "other" UDRPs as we become aware of them.
> Welcome to the group and Milton and I look forward to working with all of
> you over the next month to create the questionnaire. We apologize for the
> delay. Again, please be mindful to keep your emails substantive and to the
> point as a courtesy to us all who I am certain revive numerous emails each
> day that we must wade through.
> <<UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC>>
> Name: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC
> UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:email@example.com