Re: [nc-udrp] Questionnaire

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

I agree with Milton.  I do not find the slightly re-engineered version of
the form to be offensive.  And, any duplication should be weeded out.  If we
cannot weed out duplicate forms, we could have a much greater problem.  I
found the form workable and easy to follow.  I hope that everyone is
informing their constituents to file comments so that we have a broad range
of input to consider when putting together our report.

Regards.

J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: Milton Mueller <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>; <synthesis@videotron.ca>
Cc: <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Questionnaire


> I just entered my responses into the new form.
> I found it easier to use than the first one, and don't
> recall a lot of significant differences.
>
> Since our conclusions will NOT be based on quantification
> I'm not sure the difference is all that meaningful
> (I only wish the current form had been up to begin with).
> We can if necessary encourage people to refile
> responses - since we ask for their email addresses
> we can weed out duplications.
>
> >>> Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca> 01/10/02 10:54AM >>>
> 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
>
>
>
>