[nc-udrp] Draft Questionnaire Suggestions
Thank you for all the great work put into this draft of the questionnaire. With regard to the recent flurry of e-mails about introductory language, I tend to agree with Scott Donahey, the less said the better. Frankly, I think we should split this whole discussion into one on the subject matter of the questions and one on the wording of the questions. As any good pollster will tell you, your results are driven by the way you ask the question. I would think this group would be best served by the most neutral language possible. Having said this, and in response to your request for comments from some new quarters, here are some observations. I have summarized my thoughts concerning possible modifications below. Some have to do with the structure, some with the wording: 1. It may be preferable to invite individuals to fill out one questionnaire per category, as the interests and views of someone with multiple roles could be at odds. (E.g., an individual who serves as a Panelist and at other times represents parties to a dispute could have different views concerning some questions.) We would have a difficult time discerning what is informing a given viewpoint if we insist on one questionnaire per person. 2. If we pose questions like "If you have been a Complainant or Respondent…" we should have an "If not, then skip to Question…" instruction to make the questionnaire less confusing. 3. Question 2.e. should probably be worded "Have you lost a UDRP proceeding? If yes, have you used…" Otherwise, the "If not, why not" question doesn’t make sense. 4. Question 4 appears to presume an answer, and even if it doesn't, the results to a simple Yes/No question wouldn't provide much guidance. Perhaps we should consider a more broadly worded question such as, "Do you believe changes are necessary in the Providers’ Supplemental Rules? If so, what should be changed? (Greater uniformity? Specific rules? Additional rules?) Please explain." 5. Along with number 7 & 8 (and perhaps in the "Scope" section proposed by Dan Steinberg) we may want to ask a general question about other matters that a future UDRP-like procedure should address generally. 6. I wonder if Question 11 is actually warranted based on the limited potential for the circumstance to arise. There have been only two instances where this has ever occurred at the Forum, and the Forum has changed its Supplemental Rules as of October 15, 2001 to address this. 7. Similar concern about Question 13. Does such an issue affect sufficient numbers to include in this questionnaire? I am unaware of any such occurrences at the Forum. 8. Question 15 appears to presume an answer. Possible revision: "Should a complainant that loses a UDRP case be permitted to re-file? If so, under what circumstances? Should a three-member panel be required any time a party wishes to re-file a complaint?" 9. I was surprised by the absence of questions about Registrars. Is there no one interested in the variability of implementation of UDRP results by different Registrars? Based on the number of complaints/concerns the Forum receives, I would think this would be a topic worth addressing. 10. Finally, we should probably have a "catch-all" question at the end that solicits input for possible improvements to the UDRP that have not been covered elsewhere in the questionnaire. Thanks again for all the work. I hope these suggestions will prove helpful. Timothy S. Cole |