Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

From: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>


> I am not so sure that the providers could provide the URL through some
> automatic mechanism for fear of running afoul of spam provisions and
privacy
> provisions that differ from country to country.

That's why I mentioned that few of the providers appear to be shy about
marketing to complainants' attorneys who have participated in UDRP
proceedings.  I have received a very impressive glossy color booklet from
WIPO and exhortations to subscribe to an email news service from the NAF,
after filing UDRP complaints with those providers, and the NAF conducted its
own "user survey" prior to enacting a number of rule changes.  I don't know
of any respondents who were contacted in that prior survey by the NAF, but I
doubt respondents were considered UDRP "users".  Presumably the NAF knew who
its "users" were by the obvious method, but they never precisely specified
the methodology by which their survey was conducted, or how the survey
results related to the rule changes which were made subsequent thereto.

Now, "spam" is usually defined as "unsolicited commercial email" (UCE), and
Hormel Foods would prefer that it be referred to as "unsolicited commercial
email", than to associate their product with such an unsavory practice.  As
noted by Hormel Foods at www.spam.com  "We do not object to use of this slang
term to describe UCE, although we do object to the use of our product image
in association with that term."  However, I'm hard-pressed to understand the
commercial aspect of providing notice of a thoroughly non-commercial survey,
based on a pre-existing transactional relationship.

John Berryhill