RE: UDRP interim committee
What does it mean to say that systematic and complete factual data
about the UDRP's results "could be helpful"?
Under what circumstances would it NOT be helpful to know:
* How many cases are defaults
* What is the distribution of wins, losses, splits, terminations
* How many cases are handled by each RSP
* Whether the number of cases is increasing or declining
* How many cases have been handled by which panelists
* What UDRP decisions and court cases have been cited in decisions?
* When the disputed domain names were registered?
* The country of origin of complainants and respondents?
...or any statistical correlation that can be established between
any two or more of those data points?
Would you please explain to me how that data might not be useful?
It seems to me that any review of the UDRP that is made without
it is inherently inadequate.
When you say "statistics can be interpreted in more than one way"
of course it is correct. But I am offering the availability of data,
not an interpretation. The committee can discuss how to interpret it.
Either we interpret facts, or we make things up. Which shall it be?
>>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 05/04/01 01:23PM >>>
Milton, the raw data could be helpful. We can take a look at it when it is
availble and see if and how it might fit in with our review. I As we all
know, statistics can be interpreted in more than one way, and we need to
ensure no biases are injecting in the process. Just look at the economy and the way investors can read the numbers in conflicting ways.
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 2:46 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: Re: UDRP interim committee
The Markle Foundation has provided
our institution (Syracuse University) and the University of Massachusetts
with funding to track the UDRP. This is an objective, primarily statistical
database. That is, we will be able to generate detailed reports about number
and types of disputes, dates of registration, country of origin
of disputants, market share of RSPs, results broken down in various
ways, etc.., etc. We are committed to entering the data for the first
4,000 UDRP cases. We have a great deal of data already entered,
but will not be completely finished by Stockholm. But we should know
quite a bit about the first 2,500 to 3,000 cases by then.
If this committee generates a set of questions that could be answered
using that data, I'd be happy to generate the reports. That could be
done in time for Stockholm.
>>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 04/30/01 02:51PM
Asyou all know, we need to come up with a terms of refernce for a UDRP
review. I would like to get the dialog started this week so we have
something to report for the May 9th call.
I envisioned that we would come up with a questionnaire that would ask
questions of poeple involved in the process (complainants, respondents,
panelists, providers, and the public at large to the extent that they were
aware of the UDRP but did not use it for a particular reaons). I am
hesitant about setting up a working group (at least like those in the past)
since I believe our task is to evaluate the UDRP and and who better than the
people that use it (or do not use it for a particular reason). Also, I
view this as a fact finding mission. So for example, if the questionanire
reveals that some people are in favor of an appeal process, we can then
submit the issue to a "working group" to get the Internet communities' views
on it and hopefully reach a consensus. By presenting very succint issues, I
believe we can have more effective and more manageablk wgs. If we could
get the questionnaires out and announced at Stockholm, we can set a deadline
for accumulate the info over the summer, and possibly have the issues
crystallized for Uruguay so that wgs could be set up and then have wg
reports submitted by ICANN LA.
Well, this is just food for thought to get the ball rolling.