RE: [nc-udrp] DRAFT III
I
think we are getting to some good questions now, but I still believe that
most of them are extremely vague and need to be more narrowly
tailored. In addition, I believe that we certainly need to make it more
readable and probably divide up the questions into categories (i.e., Procedural
question, Dispute Provider Questions, etc... Otherwise, I have the
following comments to the questions:
Question
2) This question should be moved much further back in the
survey. Should we elaborate if the person had challenged to find out
the outcome?
3) I know this may be obvious, but we should probably
state represented by "legal" counsel. I may have missed an earlier
comment, but why are we asking why someone was "not" represented by
legal counsel?
4) I think this question should be made easier to understand
by the average person. Words like "provider" no "exclusive" are not always
easy to translate into other languages. In addition, the question sounds like a loaded
question. Maybe it should be a multiple choice question asking the reader
"Who do you believe should be responsible for the selection of a dispute
provider for a UDRP action? (a) The Complainant, (b) The
Respondent, (c) Both the Complainant and Respondent, (d) Neither, it
should be assigned randomly. " This is not the exact wording, but
just an idea.
5) This is an extremely vague set of questions. Currently, I
believe if a Complainant makes a simple error in its complaint, I believe things
can be corrected. If you are taking about adding new evidence, I think
this should be spelled out.
10) Are you referring here to a new Complaint based on new evidence
for the same domain name? I think this should be
clarified.
11) I think with respect to appeals, we should find out why the
person does or does not believe there should be an appeal.
13) This is a combination of two extremely vague
questions and could lead to pages and pages worth of responses. For
example, rather than asking how it can be financed, we could ask who should be
responsible for paying the costs of an appeal. How should that cost be
determined? I believe these are extremely important questions which have
garnered a lot of debate. Is there a way that this can be broken down into
smaller questions?
14) This question should be phased more like, "If you support an
appellate process, how many panelists do you believe should be required to
preside over the appeal? Why?
15) The term "preclusive" is a term I believe that is only
understood by attorneys (and can have several different meaning). Should
we ask: "If one UDRP panel has already made a determination on a UDRP
complaint in favor of the respondent, should this prevent the same complainant
from initiating a UDRP action against the same Respondent for the same domain
name?" Is that what we are trying to get at?
18) I am confused by this question. Have the dispute
providers claimed intellectual property in their own decisions such as to
prevent others from viewing the decisions or citing to those decisions in
subsequent UDRP actions?
20) This is very vague as well. What is meant by "contractual
obligation." How can one have a "contractual obligation" to participate in
a UDRP proceeding? I am not sure what information we are trying to get
(and from whom?)
21) Should probably add, "if you do not believe that there is
sufficient time..., how much time would be sufficient?"
22) Do we mean panelists from representing parties in UDRP actions
with the same dispute provider? Or are we also trying to capture a
panelist from WIPO representing a complainant before the National Arbitration
Forum?
23) Same as 22. Although I am not sure of the
relevancy?
24) This one is extremely vague too. Is there a way to narrow
this down into categories and then provider an "other" category where
the Respondent can explain?
25) There are several definitions of "reverse domain hijacking"
that I have seen. Should we be more explicit?
29 and
30) I think these are extremely loaded questions. How many people would
answer that they should not be consistent? Do we mean should the cases
rely on precedent of other cases? Or are we trying to get at something
else here?
35) I believe this is an extremely key issue that we may want to
break down. If someone replies in the affirmative, it could have some
significant impacts. For example, if someone believes that precedent
should be followed, this will cause the parties to have to actually do "legal"
research and make arguments based on the previous cases. In
addition, this will significantly raise the costs involved, and in my opinion
force a complainant or a respondent to seek out legal counsel to try to pursue
or defend its case. Furthermore, it will cause each of the panelists to do
its own research on the "case law" (adding more costs). Therefore, I
believe that this question needs to be modified to address these topics.
That being said, I will admit to not knowing exactly how to do
this.
36-39) This question is a tough one to ask the general public, who
is probably unaware of what the fees are actually paying for. Maybe we
should ask the question of "how should fees be determined" rather than asking
whether a fee (which the public knows very little about) is
appropriate.
44) Sponsored TLDs are not the only ones to have "charter
violations." I know that We (NeuLevel) have a charter dispute policy as
well as .name. We should amend the question. In addition, rather
than asking whether it should be expanded (because it is too late), we should
ask whether they are familiar with the .biz, .name, and other charter dispute
policies and find out what their thoughts are.
45) I understand the first part of the question but am confused
about the second. Are you asking whether one should be able to challenge a
ccTLD registration and a gTLD registration in the same UDRP complaint if the
respondent is the same?
45a) I agree with J. Scott about not asking about Generic
Trademarks and his rationale.
46) Are we asking about ccTLD mechanisms or court proceedings in
this question?
|