[nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire

["Katrina Burchell" <Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com>]

{\rtf1\ansi\deff0{\fonttbl {\f0\fmodern\fcharset0 Courier New;}{\f1\fswiss\fprq2 Arial;}{\f2\fnil\fcharset2 Symbol;}}
{\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue255;}
\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\ulnone\f0\fs20 dear colleagues\par
\par
okay - this is what I did:  First I found it difficult to think how to come up with a way to look at my responses and try and conlcude something.  The way I decided on was to make a chart (Word) which is attached.  I divided the respondents into different categories and the questions numbered down the left hand side with a brief note to myself to remind me what the question was!  I then counted the number of times people said yes or no and added in any useful comments that they made (indicating by x number if more than one person said it)  Where people ranked an answer I added up the total making the lowest number the one that is most important to everyone.\par
\par
I then made a count of all the types of category of respondents so against question 1 this is the total of all the respondents.  the comments I made in the lines for questions 2 to 56 are only for my respondents (57 to 65) and also questions 1 to 9 (sorry Sarah and Neil for interfering in yours!) because once I started looking at the answers I was interested to see a more wider representation of views.  After questions 9 and my ones I decided I should get some sleep and that continuing to read all the answers was not a healthy addiction.\par
\par
from what I have done I have noticed a few patterns which I comment on below\par
\par
\pard {\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}{\*\pn\pnlvlblt\pnf2\pnindent0{\pntxtb\'b7}}\fi-380\li380 people often used the "other" criteria without giving any reasons or details which was unhelpful\par
{\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}the (low) cost of the UDRP was a good reason for using it\par
{\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}everyone seemed to find the process clear\par
{\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}the majority of the answers I looked at (and indeed those received) were from complainants or their representatives - as a result they favoured adopting an approach which favoured trade mark law in deciding similarity\par
{\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}no-one had experienced any communication or language barriers - there was also little criticism of the providers following up on the transfer once ordered to\par
{\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}interestingly no-one seemed to have problems getting proof but there were some comments about improving whois data\par
{\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}reasons for not using udrp were quite obvious like seeking injunctive relief or wanting some final court decision rather than arbitration.\par
{\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}surprisingly there was a definite move towards letting the respondent chose the provider (I would have thought that would have been more towards the complainant since they were most of the respondants)\par
{\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}there didnt seem to be a clear message one way or the other about whether appeals should be allowable - some strong views on both sides, also additional filing of claims and ability to withdraw complaints drew out some interesting comments\par
{\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}everyone supported the decisions (and to some extent the background papers) being public and centrally available\par
{\pntext\f2\'b7\tab}no support for UDRP covering anything other than bad faith\par
\pard\par
\par
finally, I should apologise for the poor level of my typing as undoubtedly you will find many spelling mistakes on the attached.  Hopefully however you will find it interesting.  I am looking forward to all of your comments on the other responses\par
\par
regards\par
\par
Katrina\par
\par
\objattph\'20\par
\pard\li360\cf0\protect\f1\fs16 -----Original Message-----\par
\protect0\pard\protect\fi-1440\li1800\tx1440\b From:\tab\b0 Chicoine, Caroline G. [SMTP:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]\par
\b Sent:\tab\b0 14 February 2002 00:20\par
\b To:\tab\b0 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'\par
\b Cc:\tab\b0 'Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us'; 'DNSO Secretariat'\par
\b Subject:\tab\b0 [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire\par
\b Importance:\tab\b0 High\par
\protect0\pard\protect\li360\f0\fs20\par
We are ready to distribute the response we received to the questionnaire\par
from the DNSO website.  The responses from the ICANN website will follow in\par
due course.\par
\par
To begin with, there the following four individuals apparently did not\par
receive or respond to my email to confirm that they are in fact receiving\par
email at the nc_udrp@dnso.org email address:\par
\par
\par
gTLD Constituency rep - Jeff Neuman\par
CPR Provider - F. Peter Phillips\par
eResolution Provider - Dr. Joelle Thibault\par
WIPO Provider - Erik Wilbers\par
\par
\par
Jeff, since I received an email from you recently, I am asking the\par
secretariat to confirm that the above email is the email we have of record\par
in our nc-udrp@dnso.org email distribution list.  If you would like us to\par
use a different email address, please let us know ASAP.\par
\par
For the others, can their respective panelists try to contact their\par
providers to get a hold of these individuals?\par
\par
In total, except for the three Providers mentioned above, we have 21 members\par
to review the attached responses. All responses per question can be found at\par
\cf1\ul http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp1.txt\cf0\ulnone\par
Each individual response per questionnaire can be found at\par
\cf1\ul http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp2.txt\cf0\ulnone\par
\par
While everyone can look at all the responses in whatever format they want,\par
your minimum responsibility is to review the number of the responses from\par
the second link that are assigned to you as set forth below (the number of\par
the response is identified at the top of the record by ##<actual number of\par
response>###########################):\par
\par
\par
Sarah Deutsch #1-8\par
Neil Duncan Dundas #9-16\par
Jeff Neuman #17-24\par
J. Scott Evans #25-32\par
Antonio Harris #33-40\par
Michael Froomkin #41-48\par
Michael Palage #49-56\par
Katrina Burchell #57-65\par
M. Scott Donahey #66-73\par
F. Peter Phillips NONE\par
Ethan Katsh #74-81\par
Dr. Joelle Thibault NONE\par
James A. Carmody #82-89\par
Tim Cole #90-98\par
John Berryhill #99-107\par
Maxim Waldbaum #108-115\par
Erik Wilbers NONE\par
Dan Steinberg #116-123\par
Joon Hyung Hong #124-131\par
Graeme Dinwoodie #132-140\par
Erick Iriarte Ahon #141-148\par
Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah #149-155\par
\par
I would like everyone to review their responses and provide a summary of\par
their findings within two weeks if possible, which would put us at Feb 28th.\par
Please advise Milton or I if you believe you cannot meet this deadline so we\par
can either reassign or take on some ourselves.\par
\par
\par
}

udrpanalysis.doc