[ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

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

Bill, you do feel strongly about that subject!  :-)

I know there are a lot of opinions on this topic, and I don't want to start
a range war. I'm not commenting on whether a questionnaire is a good idea or
not, but I agree that real verifiable facts are GOOD!  I'm a little
concerned that all questionnaires that might be distributed (I said this
about the WHOIS questionnaire as well) should be considered probably
qualitative input.  But that doesn't mean it isn't useful as background,
etc. 

I'll try to add a question or perhaps some other ideas/clarifications to
Milton's list.  They are in caps inserted into a copy of Milton's initial
list with a comment in [] if needed.  I understand that Milton may not
accept my friendly amendments :-) and could offer them as stand alone
questions, should you prefer, Milton.  

A well qualified statistically valid study will take time and money, and
expertise which should be neutral and verifiable. BUT, getting some ideas
out via initial methods like this can be a great start to improving what is
known, what is believed, what is understood, and what still mystical.

Marilyn

> >001.    To what extent are panel decisions consistent with applicable
lawS? [I thought it better to note that there are multiple laws, and of
course, jurisdictional issues; I am not a lawyer, so Milton in particular
should comment on whether the "s" is needed.]
> >002.    Are decisions REGARDING CASES WITH SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS/FACTS
consistent across panelists and dispute resolution
> >service providers, and if not, what can be done about it? IS INFORMATION
AVAILABLE IN AGGREGATE FORM FROM EACH OF THE PROVIDERS WHICH WOULD ALLOW
SUCH AN ANALYSIS?
> >003.    Is the potential for abuse of claimed common law rights so great
that
> >the policy should be limited to registered marks? [THIS IS A COMMENT:
BOTH THE U.S. AND THE UK, TO MY KNOWLEDGE ACCEPT COMMON LAW RIGHTS.] 
> >004.    Should generic names, geographical names, initials and numbers be
> >protected from claims by any trademark or name rights' owner, regardless
of
> >the owner's fame? AND IF SO, IS THE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS?
> >005.    Is the high respondent default rate due to a lack of real and
timely
> >notice of complaints and/or a lack of time to respond? IS INFORMATION
AVAILABLE, IN ADDITION, ABOUT HOW MANY INCIDENTS OF INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE
REGISTRATION INFORMATION HAVE HINDERED NOTIFICATION?  
> >006.    Do complainants and respondents have parity in post-UDRP access
to
> >the courts?    
> >007.    Should the ability to challenge a name under the UDRP expire
after a
> >single registrant has held the name for a specified period of time?
> >008.     Should there be an internal review mechanism (such as an appeal
> >panel drawn from all the Providers) to overturn clearly erroneous
decisions
> >without resorting to courts?  IF SO, WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO DETERMINE
"CLEARLY ERRONEOUS DECISIONS" ACROSS EACH OF THE PROVIDERS?
> >009.    Does Complainant selection of the resolution service provider
lead to
> >"forum shopping" that tends to bias decisions against Respondents?
> >010.    Should registrars, rather than complainants, pre-select the
> >Provider(s) to whom all disputes over names registered with them will be
> >referred? IF SO, SINCE LIABILITY WILL ACCOMPANY SUCH A ROLE, WHAT KIND OF
LIABILITY SHOULD THE REGISTRARS ASSUME?  DAMAGES, COSTS, ETC.?
> >011.    Do policies for accrediting or de-accrediting dispute resolution
> >service providers need to be specified in greater detail? WOULD IT BE
USEFUL TO CONSIDER A STANDARD SET OF CRITERIA FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
PANELISTS WHICH ALL PROVIDERS MUST MEET TO BE ICANN CERTIFIED? Are any
providers'
> >supplemental rules inconsistent with either due process and/or the ICANN
> >rules?
> >012.    Should the UDRP be amended to enable respondents to initiate a
> >"declaratory judgment" regarding their "rights and legitimate interests"
in a
> >name?

-----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 2:24 PM
To: Jefsey Morfin
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire


No one should use the UDRP  -- it's a sham and a fraud.

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Should non legacy TLD use the UDRP?
>
> If you say not, it means that the money advantage obtained by NSI from
this
> system is more important than TM Holders rights.
>
> If you say yes, it means they should participate to the debate as such...
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 10:04 30/06/01, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
> >The questions cited below have been put forth by Milton Mueller, and seem
to
> >be a good starting point.
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/tor-udrp/Arc00/bin00000.bin
> >
> >001.    To what extent are panel decisions consistent with applicable
law?
> >002.    Are decisions consistent across panelists and dispute resolution
> >service providers, and if not, what can be done about it?
> >003.    Is the potential for abuse of claimed common law rights so great
that
> >the policy should be limited to registered marks?
> >004.    Should generic names, geographical names, initials and numbers be
> >protected from claims by any trademark or name rights' owner, regardless
of
> >the owner's fame?
> >005.    Is the high respondent default rate due to a lack of real and
timely
> >notice of complaints and/or a lack of time to respond?
> >006.    Do complainants and respondents have parity in post-UDRP access
to
> >the courts?
> >007.    Should the ability to challenge a name under the UDRP expire
after a
> >single registrant has held the name for a specified period of time?
> >008.     Should there be an internal review mechanism (such as an appeal
> >panel drawn from all the Providers) to overturn clearly erroneous
decisions
> >without resorting to courts?
> >009.    Does Complainant selection of the resolution service provider
lead to
> >"forum shopping" that tends to bias decisions against Respondents?
> >010.    Should registrars, rather than complainants, pre-select the
> >Provider(s) to whom all disputes over names registered with them will be
> >referred?
> >011.    Do policies for accrediting or de-accrediting dispute resolution
> >service providers need to be specified in greater detail? Are any
providers'
> >supplemental rules inconsistent with either due process and/or the ICANN
> >rules?
> >012.    Should the UDRP be amended to enable respondents to initiate a
> >"declaratory judgment" regarding their "rights and legitimate interests"
in a
> >name?
> >
> >What other questions should be added to this list?
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the ga-udrp@dnso.org list.
> >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html