Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

["J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>]

Yes and Jeff Neuman is the VP of Policy for Neulevel which runs .biz.  I can
call Elana Broitman at Register.com if you all would like.  Also, I can call
Mike Palage at Affilias.  Let me know.  I'll be glad to make the calls.  I
could also call and lobby Miriam Shapiro at Verisign.

J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: Chicoine, Caroline G. <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
To: 'Dan Steinberg' <synthesis@videotron.ca>; Katrina Burchell
<Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com>
Cc: <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:50 AM
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire


> I have forwarded the requests for outreach to the NC and specifically
asked
> the registry and registrar constituencies to help us out in any way they
> can.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:43 AM
> To: Katrina Burchell
> Cc: nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
>
>
> Well, I have been thinking about it too.  The people I am technically here
> to
> represent (the DNSO GA) know about the URL.
> I was thinking about representation.  Katrina is here to represent the
> complainant.  John Berryhill is here to represent respondents.  But John
> does
> not know every respondent, let alone the potential respondents.  So I got
to
> thinking 'what constitutes a respondent?' The one thing they all have is a
> domain name (held in good, bad or partially-cloudy faith).  Domain holders
> have
> to use registries to register and/or modify their domain information.  I
> will
> see what Verisign can do (no promises as I dont speak for them, I can only
> ask). Putting the URL to the UDRP questionnaire on their pages would give
it
> great visibility.  Does anyone on this list have contacts at any of the
> other
> registrars/registries?
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html is
> the
> URL for those (like me) that manage to misplace it every time they want to
> access it.
>
> Katrina Burchell wrote:
>
> > Dear task force colleagues
> >
> > although I am on the task force to represent the complainant, I tried to
> > think of some ways in which we can publicise the questionnaire to others
> > who might have a different point of view.  I think that many
complainants
> > and their representatives will complete the questionnaire and since
there
> > are more organised groups in the field of trade marks it is relatively
> > simple to get the message out.  However that will mean that the answers
we
> > receive are biased and not representing other interests.
> >
> > these are some ideas I came up with - does anyone have any contacts
where
> > we can try and get in touch with the right people?
> >
> > the press - either the general press or the internet or IT specialist
> press
> > search engines - can we get the questionnaire on some search engines or
> > banners?
> > CENTR - I came across this organisation via my .eu involvement but can't
> > recall the lady's name I met there - I have forwarded the link onto the
> > dot eu discussion site anyway.
> > ISPA - can they help?
> >
> > Nominet (the UK NIC) are helping me get in touch with a couple of UK
based
> > organisations which have contacts with consumers associations and other
> > interested parties because they have experience of trying to poll
opinion
> > when they introduced their new dispute resolution policy.
> >
> > Interestingly, the first decision under this new procedure has been
issued
> > and is on their site at
> > http://www.nic.uk/drs/decisions/lilly-v-clayton.html  .  It goes in
favour
> > of the trade mark owner (so some of you may be annoyed!) but the facts
> > really speak for themselves and the respondent didn't submit any
evidence.
> >
> > regards
> > Katrina
> >
> > Trade Mark Counsel
> > Unilever
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:   Chicoine, Caroline G. [SMTP:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
> > Sent:   15 November 2001 17:11
> > To:     'council@dnso.org'
> > Cc:     'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
> > Subject:        FW: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
> >
> > We have received a request to see if the registrars and/or registries
> would
> > be willing to include a link or reference to the UDRP Review
questionnaire
> > on their websites.  I am simply passing this on to the council and in
> > particulr the Registry and Registrar constituencies to the extent they
can
> > help us.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jse@adamspat.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:27 PM
> > To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.; nc-udrp@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
> >
> > 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 being said, I
think
> > groups like ICANNWATCH.ORG and ICANNBLOG.ORG could get the message out
to
> > some interested parties.  I also think that the providers could post a
> > message and the URL on their home pages.  Lastly, we might ask the
> > registrars and registries to assist us by positing the URL on their
sites
> > and sending the URL to parties who receive their electronic updates.
> >
> > Those are about all the suggestions I have.  If anyone is connected to
the
> > press, give them a call.
> >
> > J. Scott
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <john@johnberryhill.com>
> > To: <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
> >
> > >
> > > While trademark owners can be reached through organizations such as
INTA
> > and
> > > so forth, there are no corresponding organizations of domain name
> > registrants
> > > or UDRP respondents (not all of whom, of course, are non-trademark
> > owners).
> > >
> > > I am wondering, since the UDRP providers have email addresses for all
of
> > the
> > > UDRP respondents, whether it would be possible to send respondents
> notice
> > of
> > > the survey, in much the same way that attorneys who have ever filed a
> > UDRP
> > > complaint (myself included) receive various "updates", informative
> > notices,
> > > and even color brochures, from the UDRP providers.  I gather that
> similar
> > > mass mailings are not sent to respondents, but see no reason why
> > respondents
> > > cannot be informed of the survey in this manner.
> > >
> > > That would certainly be an easy thing to include in notifications
> > relating
> > to
> > > disputes presently pending, or for which notice of commencement or of
> > > decision is to be sent to respondents within the near future.  Sort of
> an
> > "if
> > > you've enjoyed being confused by people you've never heard of, being
put
> > off
> > > by a string of lawyers who had no idea what you were talking about
> before
> > you
> > > eventually found one who did, scheduling time to consult with that
> lawyer
> > who
> > > *might* return your phone calls, trying to gather evidence refuting a
> > common
> > > law trademark claim, justifying your existence, explaining you are not
a
> > > thief, and jumping through all our procedural hoops on 20 days notice,
> > then
> > > let us know at [URL]".  Although I'm sure that others could word the
> > > notification more diplomatically than I would.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> 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
>
>