RE: [nc-udrp] Re: [council] Re: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

One caveat from "lessons learned".  

I suggest that you talk to Paul Kane further, who is the chair of the WHOIS
TF.  We have around 3,000 responses, and the narratives are a little hard to
follow in the format of the output.  They are very useful as illustrations
and examples, by the way, and help to substantively improve the information
gathered by the survey, I believe. 

Start thinking now about format of your raw data.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 7:12 PM
To: 'Dan Steinberg'; Oscar A. Robles-Garay
Cc: DNSO Secretariat; Chicoine, Caroline G.; council@dnso.org;
nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] Re: [council] Re: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC


I agree with you Dan.  If we get so many responses that the Task Force
believes it needs more time to review, we can jump that hurdle when we get
there.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 6:09 PM
To: Oscar A. Robles-Garay
Cc: DNSO Secretariat; Chicoine, Caroline G.; council@dnso.org;
nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Re: [council] Re: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC


I think it's safe to assume more than 'tens'. Hundreds are a safer bet.
But I expect it's a bit late to change the process now that the
questionnaire has been issued. However I don't expect this to be a
problem since our aim was to find ideas not count 'votes'.  Besdes, no
matter how we phrase the questions, the order of magnitude for the
problem is the same, since we have to have some place on each
questionnaire for readers to give us their ideas free form. That is to
say where the answer is
'other_____  If so please explain___________________'

"Oscar A. Robles-Garay" wrote:

> How many responses are you expecting to have with this questionnaire ?
>
> tens? hundreds? thousands?
>
> In case you are expecting something bigger than "tens" I would say to
> think in the review process and change the initial format for specific
> questions/answers, it is not easy to read thousands of pages of
> comments.
>
> Oscar
>
>
> At 05:34 AM 11/6/2001, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
>
>> Secretariat proposal :
>>
>> May be the best thing to do is not to put anything on the Website,
>> but to post the Questionnaire in a txt format to ga@dnso.org and to
>> nc-udrp@dnso.org, with an automatic reply to nc-udrp@dnso.org so
>> that people from the Task force can review the results.
>> Then the only thing people will have to do is to reply to the mail
>> and to fill in the blanks.
>> Any comments ?
>>
>> dnso.org webmaster.
>>
>> On 05 Nov, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote :
>> > Please find below the UDRP Review Questionnaire for posting on the
>> ICANN and
>> > DNSO's websites.  Once it has been posted by the Secretariat, I
>> ask that
>> > each Council member provide your Constituency with the link, and
>> that Danny
>> > provide the GA with a link (I do not have Danny's email handy and
>> I cannot
>> > get out of this email to access it so I will resend with a copy to
>> him).
>> >
>> > As you will note, there are several "Other" areas and areas in
>> which we are
>> > requesting comments (rather than a "yes" or "no") and so I was
>> unsure as to
>> > whether I needed to actually leave blanks or not.  Let me know if
>> any format
>> > changes are required.  Also, how should the Task Force review the
>> repsonse.
>> > Will they be posted to nc-udrp@dnso.org or will we need to monitor
>> a certain
>> > list?  Please advise.
>> >
>> > Please email the list when it is posted so that are translators
>> can then
>> > translate it into French and Spanish.  Once translated, could our
>> > translators please send the translated version to the Secretariat,
>> for
>> > posting, and again I ask that once posted the Council members
>> advise their
>> > Constituencies and Danny the GA.
>> >
>> > Finally, upon a review of the current draft of the Terms of
>> Reference, I
>> > noticed that it needs to be updated.  Specifically, the "November
>> 2-December
>> > 15" deadline for submitting questionnaire to public should be
>> changed to
>> > "November 2-December 17"  given I am two days late in getting it
>> posted.
>> > Likewise, please change the "November 1-January 15" deadline to
>> November
>> > 1-January 17", and the January 16-February 1" deadline to January
>> > 17-February 13".  The February 14 deadline stays the same, but the
>> entry
>> > should read "Names Council votes on Report at its February 14th
>> > teleconference"
>> >
>> > If you have any questions, please let me know.
>> >
>> > Thanks to all of those who participated in developing the
>> questionnaire.
>> > Please remember that our work has only just begun.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  <<UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC>>
>
> Top Level Domain .MX
> Tel +52 (8)3875346
> http://www.nic.mx
>
> El contenido del presente mensaje de datos es confidencial. El Emisor
> no es apoderado de NIC-Mexico ni tiene facultad alguna para obligar a
> NIC-Mexico con la transmision y contenido del presente mensaje de
> datos, incluyendo el (los) archivo(s) anexo(s).

--
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca