[ga] RE: [council] The new UDRP task force

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

Milton, thanks for your support.

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:29 AM
To: philip.sheppard@aim.be; ga@dnso.org
Cc: council@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [council] The new UDRP task force


I think Philip has got it right here. 

There has to be a bootstrap process. The ToR committee served
that purpose. The only mistake we made, IMHO, was not to
invite a GA member to serve on that committee. Next time we will.

The questionnaire is indeed designed to be the vehicle for widespread
public input; it was the compromise I accepted in place of a working group. 
Let's see how well it works.

As I commented during the last NC meeting, I support the proposed
TF as the mechanism for moving forward, but recognize that 
a lot of the problems we are having are caused by the fact that we are 
making up our procedures anew every time we do something. This makes 
it difficult for participants' expectations to converge and for trust and
productive working relationships to develop. 

It is my hope that that problem will also be fixed over time. 

>>> "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> 07/03/01 09:01AM >>>
Discussion on the GA has raised some questions about outreach with respect
to the implementation of the UDRP section of the NC business plan. I have
been in discussion with the chair of the UDRP interim committee and would
like to make the following clarifications.

A public comment period as required by the bylaws is met by the current UDRP
Review Terms of Reference.  The questionnaire is the vehicle for public
comment.  The Task Force will simply compile the information it receives
from the results of the questionnaire into its
report.  To the extent that any areas of reform are identified, the actual
mechanism for implementation will be subject to a second phase of the UDRP
Review during which time there will be an opportunity for public comment
(likely in the form of a working group).  

The questionnaire approach is being used as a fact finding mission. Based on
past experience it is unlikely that a working group is the right venue for
such a mission.  

Many issues for discussion on the UDRP are technical and must include
representatives and experts in the UDRP field.  The proposed UDRP task force
has identified those individuals and experts that the interim committee
believe either directly or indirectly have a role in the UDRP.  If you feel
that any party is omitted please let us know.  

It is difficult to see what the purpose of a second public comment period
would be except to say that the Task Force got it wrong. There are checks
and balances to ensure this does not happen (i.e. if the Task Force goes in
contradiction to public comment, (1) it will be of public record, (2) the NC
should not approve the report, and (3)ICANN should not approve the
report.)

With respect to concerns about additional representation on the Task Force
by the GA, things need to be practicable. The Task Force must be manageable
so it can get things done.  There is nothing to ban each representative from
getting the input of the views he or she represents, indeed that is their
duty.


Philip Sheppard
NC Chair
--
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