Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Caroline,

Excellent work in summarizing some of our thoughts to date.  I have a few
comments on selected questions, which have been copied here using the numbering
system...

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 ____ Merits of your case _____
(Note-I took out contractual obligation selection and inserted “merits of your
case” selection)
DS - I think that /merits of the case/ isn't necessarily clear enough.  If we
wish to elicit responses we shouldnt make things as obvious as possible.

This change should also be reflected in the (New to replace 41) question about
factors influencing the decision.

The rewording on question 4 to make it more objective is excellent. Strong
agreement here.  Same for question 7 about notice.

17. If your answer to question 16 is yes, should they be made publicly available
during or after the UDRP proceeding?
Should this not be reworded to reflect 3 possible states:
* mandary disclosure (and if so during or after)
* disclosure at the decision of parties about their own documents
* ban on disclosure during and/or after


(New)What standard of review should be used on appeal (i.e, de novo, abuse of
discretion)?
(While I know that these standards are US centric, can anyone think of a way of
getting the same point across?)

suggested format: Should the right to appeal be automatic? If not, what
restrictions should apply?

as an aside I belive you will find the concept of restrictions on the right to
appeal to be a widespread concept, found in any jurisdiction where dockets are
full. The only differences are the underlying mechanisms whereby restrictions
apply. These vary from the concept of everything in principle can be appealed,
except for specific circumstancess such as in some cases the judge of first
instance is deemed best placed and nobody second guesses them....to the concept
of infallability i.e. in principle no appeal...with statutory exceptions added
one by one on a restrictive basis.

25a. If your answer to question 25 is no, how do you propose the UDRP should be
amended to adequately deal with reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH), from the
perspective of both determining RDNH liability and determining the available
remedies against a complainant found liable of RDNH..
(Note-I changed the language a bit)
strong agreement with the changes

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS I PROPOSE WE DELETE AND THE REASONS WHY
How do you propose any transfer to another provider be accomplished from a
procedural standpoint? (This was in conjunction with question 4 and to be honest
I am not quite sure what this question is trying to get at)

I suggest this question be reinstated.  It covers a wide range of circumstances
from the simplest (provider is unable to handle the case at the time) to more
complex that might come up under a variety of new scenarios (like the
possibility of a respondent to request change to a different provider).

"Chicoine, Caroline G." wrote:

> > Sorry for the delay, but here is the most current version of the
> > questionnaire.  I have taken the liberty to move some questions around but
> > for the time being have kept the numbering the same so people could
> > compare it against their earlier notes and versions.  (In other words, the
> > numbering currently makes no sense, but just disregard) I have put in
> > comments to notify you all when I changed any language or added new
> > questions.
> >
> > I also believe that we need to have an introductory paragraph to the
> > questionnaire a draft of which is provided below.
> >
> "Pursuant to the UDRP Review and Evaluation Terms of Reference, version 2
> (which can be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html) the
> UDRP Review and Evaluation Task Force hereby submits a questionnaire to
> solicit public comment through a bottom up, consensus-building DSNO process
> regarding various aspects of the existing UDRP.  The Task Force has drafted
> this questionnaire with an eye towards not only identifying potential areas
> of reform, but also generating useful suggestions to the extent that
> modifications to the UDRP are suggested.  Therefore, to the extent that your
> responses are critical to the existing UDRP, we request that your responses
> also include proposed solutions. Each individual should submit only one
> response to this questionnaire.   There is absolutely no advantage in
> submitting multiple responses since the Task Force will not be collecting
> any statistics based on the responses it receives.  Rather, it is only
> interested in the merits and the substance of the comments it receives.
>
> This questionnaire is initially being submitted in English, but Spanish and
> French versions will be issued shortly.
>
> We thank you for your time and consideration in completing this
> questionnaire.
>
> UDRP Review and Evaluation Task Force
> November 1, 2001"
>
> > Given my delay in getting this to you, please let me have your thoughts by
> > 9 am central standard time on Thursday, November 1st. Except with respect
> > to the new or revised stuff, this is not the time to be asking for a major
> > overhaul of the questionnaire.  You all have had this month to do that.
> > Assuming no major changes or objections are raised, I plan to incorporate
> > any final comments and send the questionnaire to the DNSO Secretariat for
> > posting to the ICANN website, the DNSO website, the GA and the
> > Constituency websites later that day on Thursday, Nov. 1.  I will also
> > send a copy to Erick and Dan for translation into Spanish and French,
> > respectively.  If there is anyone else that could translate the
> > questionnaire any other languages, it would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Once the questionnaire is out, we still have work to do.  First and
> > foremost, we need to be reviewing results as they come in. I will check
> > with the Secretariat how we will receive copies of the response and get
> > back to you on that. Second, we will need to also review third party
> > studies, a list of which I will provide to you shortly.
> >
> If anyone has any questions, please let me know.
>
> >  <<UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC>>
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                     Name: UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC
>    UDRP Review Questionnaire.DOC    Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
>                                 Encoding: base64

--
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca