DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: UDRP interim committee

Oscar, I was thinking the same thing about getting the providers to post the
questionnaire to get a good outreach.

-----Original Message-----
From: Oscar A. Robles Garay [mailto:orobles@nic.mx]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 6:09 PM
To: Milton Mueller
Cc: kstubbs@corenic.org; MSapiro@netsol.com; mueller@syracuse.edu;
CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com; Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr
Subject: RE: UDRP interim committee


	I fully agree with you in both, the relevance of the raw data
analysis (it should be interpreted in a proper way by us, though) and the
impact on a well defined population of input analysis

	The late will be, in my opinion, the roughest task, but agreeing on
it will make easier the next steps. Basically we are talking about the 7
constituencies of the DNSO, plus those "not interested on the ICANN process"
but involved on the UDRP issues. Would it be appropriate to ask WIPO (an the
other three panelists providers) to send this questionaire to al parties
involved in UDRP cases?


On Fri, 4 May 2001, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Caroline:
> Your concept of limiting the survey sample to "those who have actually
> used the UDRP" or "people who have affirmatively decided not to"
> suggests that the survey would only be performed on trademark holders. Is
this correct?
> If so, obviously that is an unacceptable method of review and we will
> have to come up with a far more inclusive concept of whose opinion we
> are interested in. If not, pardon my misinterpretation.
> At any rate, it is worth stating explicitly that the DNSO review of the
> UDRP is supposed to represent all stakeholders.
> We need to find out what registrars, registries, ordinary domain name
holders, and respondents who won and who lost a UDRP case think.
> Also, referring to my prior message, you need to explain to me why you
> are doubtful about the value of objective statistical information, but
> interested in generating statistics about highly subjective and imprecise
> variables such as the opinions of users of the UDRP.
> >>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 05/04/01
01:23PM >>>
> I too wanted the population to be defined and thus wanted to limit it to
> those peoople that have actually used the UDRP, but also those that
> affirmnatively decided not to for a particular reason (the reasons very
> well may be some of the issues raised in the NCDNH's respolutions). I did
> not want this to be an esoteric discussion but one based on real
> experiences with the UDRP.
> We may also want to look at the results of the WIPO study released in
> Miriam, Ken, what are your thoughts.
> PS, Milton I have emailed Elisabeth to ask whether we can be set up as an
> email group so our emails can be archived.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>