[nc-udrp] Re: UDRP Questionnaire

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

I too would like to rereview the questionairre.  I didn't have that luxury 
when I produced my chart.  I simply follow Katrina's model;however, I think 
I'd like to review the questionairre in order to come to some more formal 
conclusions on the responses I have reviewed.

jse 


Dinwoodie, Graeme writes: 

> 
> Caroline, 
> 
> Forgive me if I've missed it, but do we have the link to the questionnaire?
> I'm working on the basis of my own shorthand recollection of the questions,
> but it would be useful to see the actual document to which responses were
> made.  Thanks 
> 
> Graeme 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 5:05 PM
> To: 'DNSO Secretariat'; 'Louis Touton'
> Cc: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
> Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire
> Importance: High 
> 
> 
> I have given our Task Force members a Feb 28th deadline to review the
> responses from the DNSO version questionnaire, but they can no longer find a
> link to the questionnaire to compare the responses against.  Can you please
> provide us a link asap. 
> 
> Louis, since we do not have the ICANN responses yet, it is not as urgent,
> but we will need a link to the ICANN version also at some point. 
> 
> Thanks 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chicoine, Caroline G. 
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:58 AM
> To: 'DNSO Secretariat'; 'Louis Touton'
> Cc: 'MSD@tzmm.com'
> Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire 
> 
> 
> Glen and Louis, can you email the link where are Task Force members can find
> each version?  Thanks 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MSD@tzmm.com [mailto:MSD@tzmm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:47 AM
> To: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com
> Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire 
> 
> 
> Where can we find a copy of the questionnaire?  The results are all answers,
> without the questions. 
> 
> Best regards. 
> 
> M. Scott Donahey
> Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli & Maser LLP
> 200 Page Mill Rd.
> Palo Alto, CA  94306
> Phone:  (650) 325-8666
> Fax:      (650) 324-1808
> msd@tzmm.com
> www.tzmm.com 
> 
> 		"This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
> destroy all copies of the original message." 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:20 AM
> To: Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire 
> 
> 
> I thought long and hard about that, but decided not to put any constraints.
> I would like everyone's comments to be in a summary fashion that highlights
> the good, the bad and the suggestions, trying to be as concise as possible.
> Once we see everyone's summaries, and once we do the same exercise with the
> ICANN responses, we can discuss the summaries and see if we can put together
> a report that represents some sort of consensus. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katrina Burchell [mailto:Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:57 AM
> To: nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire 
> 
> 
> Hi 
> 
> Is there any format in which you want our review of the responses for
> which we are responsible posted? 
> 
> regards
> Katrina 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Chicoine, Caroline G. [SMTP:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:20 AM
> To:	'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
> Cc:	'Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us'; 'DNSO Secretariat'
> Subject:	[nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Questionnaire
> Importance:	High 
> 
> We are ready to distribute the response we received to the questionnaire
> from the DNSO website.  The responses from the ICANN website will follow in
> due course. 
> 
> To begin with, there the following four individuals apparently did not
> receive or respond to my email to confirm that they are in fact receiving
> email at the nc_udrp@dnso.org email address: 
> 
> 
> gTLD Constituency rep - Jeff Neuman
> CPR Provider - F. Peter Phillips
> eResolution Provider - Dr. Joelle Thibault
> WIPO Provider - Erik Wilbers 
> 
> 
> Jeff, since I received an email from you recently, I am asking the
> secretariat to confirm that the above email is the email we have of record
> in our nc-udrp@dnso.org email distribution list.  If you would like us to
> use a different email address, please let us know ASAP. 
> 
> For the others, can their respective panelists try to contact their
> providers to get a hold of these individuals? 
> 
> In total, except for the three Providers mentioned above, we have 21
> members
> to review the attached responses. All responses per question can be found
> at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp1.txt
> Each individual response per questionnaire can be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp2.txt 
> 
> While everyone can look at all the responses in whatever format they want,
> your minimum responsibility is to review the number of the responses from
> the second link that are assigned to you as set forth below (the number of
> the response is identified at the top of the record by ##<actual number of
> response>###########################): 
> 
> 
> Sarah Deutsch #1-8
> Neil Duncan Dundas #9-16
> Jeff Neuman #17-24
> J. Scott Evans #25-32
> Antonio Harris #33-40
> Michael Froomkin #41-48
> Michael Palage #49-56
> Katrina Burchell #57-65
> M. Scott Donahey #66-73
> F. Peter Phillips NONE
> Ethan Katsh #74-81
> Dr. Joelle Thibault NONE
> James A. Carmody #82-89
> Tim Cole #90-98
> John Berryhill #99-107
> Maxim Waldbaum #108-115
> Erik Wilbers NONE
> Dan Steinberg #116-123
> Joon Hyung Hong #124-131
> Graeme Dinwoodie #132-140
> Erick Iriarte Ahon #141-148
> Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah #149-155 
> 
> I would like everyone to review their responses and provide a summary of
> their findings within two weeks if possible, which would put us at Feb
> 28th.
> Please advise Milton or I if you believe you cannot meet this deadline so
> we
> can either reassign or take on some ourselves. 
>