Re: [nc-udrp] Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:08:37 -0500

[Erick Iriarte <faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe>]

Well.

Not problem with the traslation.

I just arrived from the I World Congress of Computer Law (Quito, Ecuador), 
and i participated in a Discussion Session around Disputes Resolution in 
ccTLD with the legal advisor from ccTLD .PE, ccTLD. VE, ccTLD. CU, ccTLD. 
EC and me (ccTLD .PE), i send the conclusions tomorrow (because the 
congress been in spanish), and have some interesting ideas abaout LDRP and 
UDRP.

See you.

Erick Iriarte Ahon
ccTLD .PE
http://www.nic.pe

At 12:08 a.m. 10/27/2001 +0200, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote:
>First, I want to thank everyone for their comments, and a special thanks to
>Dan for pulling it all together.  I plan to review everything to date this
>weekend and post the most current version on Monday and given that our
>schedule requires us to submit it for public comment next Thursday, I ask
>that you all take one last look and let me have your final comments by close
>of business Wednesday (say midnight central standard time).
>
>While we will post an English version on Thursday, I would ask that my
>translation volunteers be ready to translate as soon as they can thereafter.
>
>Also, if there is anyone that is planning to attend the LA meting and has
>not already emailed me so, please do.
>
>Thanks again for everyone's help.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Carmody [mailto:carmodyjim@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:46 AM
>To: UDRP Task Force; Caroline G. Chicoine
>Subject: My Comments on Draft III
>
>
>
>First of all, my thanks and congratulations to those who have gotten the
>Questionnaire this far!  My comments (in green and in brackets) are really
>refinements looking at the issues through the eyes of a panelist.
>
>1.  Please put a check next to each category that applies to you.
>
>___  Constituency member (If so, please indicate which Constituency
>_______________)
>___  Complainant
>___  Respondent
>___  Panelist (If so, please indicate which Provider ______________________)
>
>___  Other (Please identify your primary interest in the UDRP
>_____________________
>
>2.  Have you ever challenged a UDRP decision in court?  Why or Why not?
>
>3.  If you have ever been a party in a UDRP action, were you represented by
>counsel? If not, why not?
>
>4.  Should the selection of a provider continue to be the exclusive right of
>the complainant?  Why or why not?
>
>[How do you propose any transfer to another provider be accomplished from a
>procedural standpoint?]
>
>5.  Should complainants be allowed to amend their complaint? Why or why not?
>Should Respondents be allowed to amend their responses?  Why or why not?
>
>6. [ Did you experience ]any difficulties in collecting or submitting proofs
>or other materials in the process of dispute resolution? If so, please
>describe.
>
>7.   How would you improve the notice procedures found in the UDRP?
>
>[Do the UDRP rules allow enough time for the parties to state their
>positions and for the panelists to rule competently?]
>
>8.   Have you been well informed of the course and schedule of dispute
>resolution?
>
>9.   Do you believe the providers' supplemental rules should be uniform?
>Why or why not?
>
>10. Should a Complainant be able to re-file a new complaint on the same
>domain name?  Why or why not?
>
>11. Do you think there should be the ability to appeal a decision within the
>UDRP? IF NO, PLEASE SKIP TO NEXT SECTION.
>
>12. Do you believe there should be an appeal process within the UDRP and
>why?
>
>13. How should such an appeal process work and how should it be financed?
>
>14.  Should all appeals go to a 3-member panel?  Why or why not?
>
>15.  Should prior UDRP decisions [have] any preclusive effect in subsequent
>UDRP proceedings involving the same parties and same domain name(s)?
>
>16.  Do you believe copies of the complaints and responses should be
>publicly accessible?  Why or why not?
>
>17.  SHOULD THIS [DISCLOSURE BE MADE] DURING OR ONLY AFTER THE DECISION?
>
>18. Should decisions be in the public domain or should they be the
>intellectual property of the providers.
>
>19.  DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE DECISIONS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN ONE CENTRAL
>PLACE
>ACCESSIBLE FOR PANELISTS AND PUBLIC?
>
>20.  Of the following factors, please rank the factors which most influenced
>your decision to participate in a UDRP proceeding using a scale from 1 to 5,
>with 1 being the most important factor and 5 being the least important.
>
>Cost of proceedings ___        Thoroughness of process ____        Other
>_______________________________
>
>Speed of proceedings ___      Quality of decisions _____
>
>Provider reputation ____        Contractual obligation _____
>
>IF YOU ARE NOT A PANELIST OR PROVIDER, PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION NO. 22.
>
>21.  If you are a panelist or provider, do you believe there is sufficient
>time to review complaints and answers for sufficiency?   Why or why not?
>
>22.  Should panelists be disqualified from representing parties before the
>UDRP?  Why or why not?
>
>23.  Should panelists' law firms be disqualified from representing parties
>before the UDRP?  Why or why not?
>
>24.  If you have been a Respondent and did not respond to the complaint, why
>did you decide not to respond?
>
>25.  How should "reverse domain name hijacking" be dealt with under the
>UDRP?
>
>IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN A PARTY OR COUNSEL FOR A PARTY IN A UDRP ACTION,
>PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION NO.29
>
>26.  If you have been a party or counsel for a party in a UDRP action, was
>the process sufficiently clear to you?  Why or why not?
>
>27.   If you have been a party or counsel for a party in a UDRP action, did
>you feel that the panelist/panelists were impartial and considerate in
>handling the case?   Why or why not?
>
>28.   If you have been a party or counsel for a party in a UDRP action, did
>you have any communication difficulties such as a language barrier?  If so,
>please describe your experience.
>
>29.  Do you believe it is important for UDRP decisions to be consistent?
>Why or why not?
>
>30.   If so, how would you amend the UDRP to ensure consistency among
>decisions?
>
>31.   If you have been an arbitrator, was there information in prior
>decisions that you would have liked to have but was difficult to find?
>
>
>     ·  issue of 'confusingly similar'
>
>
>         Can someone come up with question(s) here?
>
>
>[Should UDRP Policy be more specific on issues such as common law
>trademarks, competing trademarks used in different jurisdictions, the issue
>of "laches" in asserting a complaint, deference to registered trademarks
>which the panelist may feel are generic,  deference to fact allegations,
>strength of the mark, etc., in default proceedings. ]
>
>
>
>33.  Do you believe both registration and use should be required for a
>finding of cybersquatting?  Why or why not?
>
>
>34.  Should the UDRP be revised so that either registration or use alone can
>be used to sustain a finding of cybersquatting?  Why or why not?
>
>35.  Should prior UDRP decisions have precedential value for future
>proceedings within the UDRP?
>
>[Move to position below 15.]
>
>36.  Do you feel that the fees being charged by the providers are
>appropriate?  If not, why not?
>
>37.  If you feel that current fees are not appropriate, how do you feel they
>should be changed?
>
>38.  Do you feel that the fees being paid to the panelists are appropriate?
>
>39.  If not, how do you feel they should be changed?
>
>40. Should a respondent get a refund on the fee for a three person panel
>requested by the complainant when the complainant drops the complaint if so,
>what type (i.e., full, partial)?
>
>41.  HAVE YOU EVER DECIDED AGAINST TAKING A COMPLAINT TO UDRP AND IF SO WHY?
>
>
>
>42.    DO YOU BELIEVE IT WOULD BE USEFUL IF UDRP PROVIDED A MANDATORY
>MEDIATION SERVICE OR A COOLING OFF PERIOD TO ALLOW PARTIES TO DISCUSS THE
>DISPUTE AND REACH AN AMICABLE SOLUTION?
>
>
>43.  Should the UDRP be expanded to cover disputes other than cybesquatting?
>If so, what other issues should be covered and why?
>
>
>44.   Should the UDRP be expanded to deal with charter violations of
>sponsored TLDs?  Why or why not?
>
>
>45.   DO YOU THINK THAT UDRP SHOULD BE UNIFORM ACROSS GTLDS AND CCTLDS AND
>THAT COMPLAINTS AGAINST BOTH DOMAIN NAME LEVELS CAN BE MADE IN ONE
>APPLICATION?
>
>
>         Do you believe the UDRP adequately deals with the issue of generic
>trademarks and why (please include examples, if possible)?  THERE IS NO SUCH
>THING AS A GENERIC TRADEMARK.  A GENERIC IS PER SE UNREGISTRABLE AS A
>TRADEMARK.  THEREFORE, THIS QUESTION IS UNSOUND FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE AND
>EMOTIONALLY CHARGED TO SOLICIT A RESPONSE.
>
>46.  Are you aware of any other dispute resolution mechanisms for dealing
>with cybersquatting that you feel show merit in some way?
>
>47.  Have you used a domain name dispute resolution mechanism other then
>ICANN's UDRP and if so, which one(s) and what did you like and dislike about
>it/them?
>
>
>48.  In what way, other than the questions above, do you feel the process
>could be improved. Any further comments are appreciated:
>
>
>
>
>James A. Carmody, nn5o, carmody@lawyer.com
>Voice Mail: 713 446 4234; eFax: 815 461 5321
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Make a great connection at Yahoo!
><http://rd.yahoo.com/mktg/mail/txt/tagline/?http://personals.yahoo.com>
>Personals.