DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: RE: [tor-udrp] First draft of ToR

"the group should examine procedural and substantive issues of the UDRP."


"I think we need to ask the group to answer specific questions."

my thinking was that the questionnaire/survey would produce those specific
issues (both substance and procedure) that then need to be further addressed
by wgs.    I thought that based on the last nc call, we should solicit other
relevant people to be involved in creating the questionnaire (ie, panelists,
providers etc) that are not part of the current interim committee.

Can others please contribute their thoughts!

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 7:57 PM
To: tor-udrp@dnso.org; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com
Subject: Re: RE: [tor-udrp] First draft of ToR


Section 1 charged the group to develop a survey,
as we agreed. 

Sections 2 and 3 of the proposed ToR asks the
group to address UDRP procedures and substance. The
NC in creating this group must provide it with
some guidance as to what issues it is to address.
That is what the list is. It is not a "questionnaire,"
i.e. I am not interested in a sample of opinion,
I am interested in the right answer to those
questions. That is precisely the "skeleton" we 

It seems to me to be pretty uncontroversial to say
that the group should examine procedural and
substantive issues of the UDRP. Can we agree on that?

If we do agree on that, the next step is to come
to an agreement on how specific our guidance is.
I think we need to ask the group to answer 
specific questions. 

If you think other issues need to be addressed,
feel free to add them. That's what collaboration is
all about.

>>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 05/15/01 11:48 AM
Milton, I thought after our NC meeting that we were going to leave the
details/substance of the questionnaire to the "task force" that would create
the questionaire?  Several of the issues that you have asked "the group" to
address appear to address the concerns of your constituency as set forth in
its recent resolution.  These should be raised as the questionnaire is being
created, along with concerns from other stakeholders.

At this stage, my understanding is that we simply need to provide the
"skeleton" from which a task force and/or wg should proceed.  In this
regard, is everyone is in agreement that we develop some sort of Task Force
of relevent parties to create an objective questionnaire, disseminat the
questioannaire, have the task force review results and establish wgs based
on them to tackle the issues developed through the questionnaire to
hopefully come up with a consensus based position regarding same.  My idea
of a tor is set forth below.

Can others please provide their thoughts on this so we can move forward?


Mission Statement


A.  UDRP Review Interim Committee establishes Task Force of relevent
stakeholders to create questionnaire.  The Task Force shall solicit an
individual from each of the following stakeholders to particpate in the
creation of the questionnaire: complainant, respondent, panelist from each
provider, provider, etc.

Timeframe - Task Force creation -???
		Creation of questioannire - ???
		Publication of questioannaire - ???
		Responses due - ??

B. Task Force reviews results of questioannire and identifies issues needed
to be addressed by working groups.  

Timeframe - ???

C.Task Force creates appropriate wg(s) with detailed terms of reference to
address those issues.



-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 5:22 PM
To: tor-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: [tor-udrp] First draft of ToR

I've attached it as a Word document. If this causes 
trouble for anyone let me know; I'll convert it to
ASCII and send it again.

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