Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire.

[jse@adamspat.com]

I think an extension is definitely in order.

J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
To: "'Milton Mueller'" <mueller@syr.edu>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>; "Chicoine,
Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
Cc: "'Louis Touton'" <touton@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 6:08 PM
Subject: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire.


> I believe that the DNSO Secretariat has made the changes that some people
> were concerned about so are we all in agreement that it is acceptable.
> ICANN will not post it unless I can tell them we are all on board.  Rather
> than have everyone respond yes (which I hope si the case)  If anyone still
> has problems, please email me ASAP.
>
> In addition, given the delays in getting it posted on the ICANN website, I
> propose to extend the deadline to January 17th as suggested by Milton.
Does
> anyone have any objections?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 12:13 PM
> To: nc-udrp@dnso.org; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:42:31 -0600
>
>
> I think we need to go through one more
> round of preparing the questionnaire
> before posting it to ICANN.
>
> Accordingly, I would formally request that
> we move the closure of comments back to January 17.
>
>
> >>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 11/20/01 16:08
PM
> >>>
> I have asked ICANN to publish the questionnaire on its website, but based
on
> the email exchanges below, it wants me to confirm whether it is ready for
> posting.  It does not want to post it if we are then going to ask for
> changes or retract some of it.
>
> Are we all satisfied that the questionnaire in its current form is okay
for
> posting by ICANN? Personally, I think we should go forward since the
> questionnaire has been out for a week and I think changing course snow
would
> be disruptive, but I need to hear your thoughts, ASAP please.
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ethan Katsh [mailto:katsh@legal.umass.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:43 AM
> > To: nc-udrp@dnso.org
> > Cc: council@dnso.org; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
> >
> >          I have been away and if Dan's suggestions below have already
been
> > implemented, I would be very pleased. But if people are still filling
out
> a
> > form that has the kind of format flaws Milton identifies below, or if
> there
> > are questions that are confusing people, these should be fixed as
quickly
> > as possible. Given all this, we might be fortunate that there is as yet
no
> > notice of the questionnaire on the ICANN home page or the ICANN UDRP
page.
> > This, however, should be fixed quickly as well.
> >
> > Ethan
> >
> > At 12:00 PM 11/14/01 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> > >Given the errors on the page (which are not limited to the oes you
point
> > >out and are duplicated in the french translation), should we not
perhaps
> > >wait a bit before publicizing?
> > >
> > >Also, does anyone know where the responses submitted are going to?
> > >
> > >I know people have been commenting already and I think it would be a
good
> > >idea to get a head start on looking at responses before the inevitable
> > >final-filing deadline deluge.
> > >
> > >Milton Mueller wrote:
> > >
> > > > I intend to express these concerns at the
> > > > Names Council meeting today, but for online
> > > > participants I will do it here, also.
> > > >
> > > > 1. We need to do a much better job of publicizing
> > > > the availability of this questionnaire. It is
> > > > a call for public comment but the public
> > > > has no idea it exists, and circulation among
> > > > the small coterie of dnso mailing lists will
> > > > not do the trick.
> > > >
> > > > The NC or ICANN should issue a news release
> > > > that solicits public comment and makes the
> > > > URL for it well known. There are a number of
> > > > reporters who follow ICANN closely who will
> > > > pick this up. It should also be highlighted
> > > > on ICANN's home page.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Flaw in survey form
> > > > On question 13, we ask "who should be
> > > > responsible for the selection of the provider."
> > > > The response should be a check box but
> > > > instead is a ranking from 1 - 5. I found this
> > > > so confusing that I was unable to answer
> > > > the question at all. I suspect many others will
> > > > too. But Q 13 is a crucial question.
> > > >
> > > > In general, our members report finding the
> > > > survey format difficult to understand and use.
> > > >
>
>
> Caroline G. Chicoine
> Thompson Coburn LLP
> One Firstar Plaza
> St. Louis, MO.  63101
> (314) 552-6499
> (314) 552-7499 (fax)
> cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com
>
>