RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review - Draft Questionnaire
From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 1:59 PM
To: Milton Mueller
Cc: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org;
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review - Draft Questionnaire
I am qualified to translate the questionnaire into French, if no one else
Milton Mueller wrote:
> I think you have hit many of the right issues with the draft, however,
> I have a question about its format.
> The format is structured as a questionnaire, which seems to
> presume that someone is going to "count" the results. This
> will require a lot of work. Also, as a self-selected population, the
> resulting statistics could not be considered a representative sample of
> a population. Especially given language differences.
> Would it not be simpler to just have a bullet list of relevant
> issues and ask commenters to address them in an open-ended
> BTW, once we have an acceptable questionnaire, are any of the
> non-English members of the Task Force willing to take responsibility
> for translating it?
> >>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 10/02/01
> I have no problem and agree with your reasoning for changing the "front
> of the timeline so it does not appear that it took us so long to create
> questionnaire. Elisabeth, please change the first deadline to October 1,
> 2001 - November 1, 2001.
> The reasons there is overlap in having the questionnaire submitted to the
> public and our review of the responses is that (1) we can start reviewing
> responses as they come in, and (2) at the same time we should be reviewing
> the outside studies mentioned in the Terms of Reference.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 6:24 PM
> To: Chicoine, Caroline G.
> Cc: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; 'DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org'
> Subject: 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,
> on earht is the point of having the June 20-August 14th deadline for
> the questionnaire? Why not have a timeline that reflects reality and
> useful imformation? Someone is sure to wonder why it took so long to
> questionnaire. Why not simply say Oct 1-November xx?
> As for the rest of the timeline, Ive been a project magager many times im
> career and I find it a bit confusing. I 'think' I can explain the
> without actually *knowing* why I have uncertainty. The timeline also
> fairly ambitious, so everyone feel free to tell me to shut up and get down
> substantive work ok?
> "Chicoine, Caroline G." wrote:
> > Per my email on Friday, this email is to provide you with a revised
> > (Elisabeth, can you just take these new dates from these email and
> > Terms of Reference or do you want me to edit it and send you a revised
> > version?)
> > The June 29-August 14th deadline for creating the questionnaire should
> > changed to June 29-November 1, 2001.
> > The August 15-September 15 deadline for submitting the questionnaire to
> > public forum comment should be changed to November 2-December 15.
> > The August 15-October 31 deadline for the Task Force to review results
> > questionnaire and prepare report should be changed to November 1-January
> > 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
> > 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
> > promised. Is there anyone on the list that cannot open Word
> > The questionnaire includes questions based on input the interim
> > 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
> > up in the final questionnaire so PLEASE do not start shooting the
> > As the terms of reference mention, there were several topics that we as
> > 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
> > 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
> > process, can I recommend that the following people review the policies
> > identify the differences between them and ICANN's UDRP (I have chosen
> > following people because they come from the countries or regions to
> > 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
> > Welcome to the group and Milton and I look forward to working with all
> > you over the next month to create the questionnaire. We apologize for
> > delay. Again, please be mindful to keep your emails substantive and to
> > point as a courtesy to us all who I am certain revive numerous emails
> > day that we must wade through.
> > <<UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC>>
> > Name: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC
> > UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC Type: WINWORD File
> > Encoding: base64
> Dan Steinberg
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1 e-mail:email@example.com
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:firstname.lastname@example.org