RE: [nc-udrp] Questionnaire

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

Let me take a closer look at the two questionnaires and get back to you.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:55 AM
To: Chicoine, Caroline G.
Cc: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Questionnaire


Caroline,

You are probably right about the timeliness of redacting.
What does everyone think about the need to post some release or disclaimer
stating that work of the task force is reflected in the questionnaire posted
on the DNSO site, and that the ICANN version contains changes we had nothing
to do with?

Also, Caroline, do you know who at ICANN made the changes and why?  My
reason
for asking is so we don't have to worry about it happening again. Looking
forward, I would be very concerned that our eventual Task Force report be
issued everywhere without identical content.

"Chicoine, Caroline G." wrote:

> I was not aware that ICANN was going to change the format before it posted
> it.  I only learned about it once it was posted.  Given how long it took
> them to post it, and now that the "cat is out of the bag"  I wonder what
> good it would do to redact it at this point.  As we review the responses
> (pre-ICANN posting vs post-ICANN posting) we will need to consider what
> affect, if any, the changes made to the responses.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:10 AM
> To: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
> Subject: [nc-udrp] Questionnaire
>
> My apologies for not posting sooner on this subject. I just got a chance
> to look at the questionnaire as posted on the ICANN website and I was
> quite surprised at the differences.  Starting from question 1, I could
> not help notice that these differences made for quite a different 'feel'
> to the questionnaire, including questions on details that I believe we
> discussed and agreed to not collect.  On the ICANN site, in question 1,
> the questionnaire asks for number of proceedings, how many domain names
> were involved, what providers, win/lose/some of each, how many
> panelists, etc. then the same if you were a respondent, the same if you
> were a UDRP panelist.
>
> Again, my apologies for not speaking up earlier when this first came up.
> But am I the only one that finds this to be a problem?  It seems to be a
> significant disconnect.
>
> --
> 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

--
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