Re: [ga] The new UDRP task force

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 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.
>
> Does this not in fact constrain and stifle comment? In the first
> place, the questions
> will often not encompass the range of issues with which the public is
> concerned,
> and secondly, a good many people have posted observations that the
> questions
> themselves are misleading or loaded -- with a finely tuned
> questionnaire, one
> can come up with whatever "conclusions" one wishes.  I myself question
> quite
> sincerely that this questionnaire comes anywhere near to satisfying
> anything,
> and for that reason I suggest that the emails continue.
>
>
> The Task Force will simply compile the information it receives from
> the results of the questionnaire into its
> report.
>
> I repeat, "with a finely tuned questionnaire, one can
> come up with whatever 'conclusions' one wishes."
>
> (My apologies for the big font: with the software used by the sender,
> it is impossible for any response not to be lost in the original
> unless
> one sets it out boldly.)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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

--
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