<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89
I can assure you all I have no intention of taking any editorial liberties.
The Chair is supposed to be merely a facilitator to keep things rolling and
focused. I would never presume to have the unique knowledge and expertise
you each bring to the table. While I will not be Chair during the report
drafting phase, I will make sure my successor understands this role and if
he or she does not, I am sure this bashful group will keep him or her in
line.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 1:58 PM
To: J. Scott Evans
Cc: Chicoine, Caroline G.; carmody@lawyer.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89
As long as we're going to have our discussion before the chair starts
drafting, that's great. Given the history of how chairs have used their
drafting powers in certain other ICANN TF's, however, I do not in any way
see how a person could call this an over-reaction. Erroneous conclusion
on my part, I surely hope so; a reasonable fear, undoubtedly.
Ps. I'm just a lawyer, not a "Dr."!
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, J. Scott Evans wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> I think that everyone is seriously overreacting. Caroline's email in no
way
> indicates that there will be no robust debate or inclusion of the various
> viewpoints regarding the need for reform to the UDRP. It is exactly this
> kind of overreaction that leads TF leaders to feel "attacked" over
innocent
> comments. I, for one, think the survey responses are interesting, but not
> dispositive. In addition, I am well aware of Dr. Froomkin's concerns
about
> the UDRP since its very inception and have read a great majority of his
> rather prolific works on this subject (although I must confess I have not
> yet read the his latest). I have no problem (and always assumed) that we
> would all have an opportunity to discuss these viewpoints before
forwarding
> our paper to the NC.
>
> Please let's not overreact. If we feel that there areas that require
> further consideration or debate so be it. Let's suggest a format for
doing
> so (such as a suggested schedule/timetable for considering and debating
the
> various papers that have been put forward). Let's have action and
> pragmatism, rather than assuming that the process is designed to shut
> someone or some viewpoint out.
>
> That being said, I may have misinterpreted the tone of Scott's and
Michael's
> earlier messages. However, that should only highlight the danger of email
> as a primary mode of communication. Far too often email communication is
> either too caustic in tone or has the ability to be misinterpreted as
> caustic when that is not the intent. Let us all beware. I hope that I
have
> not offended either Scott or Michael. That is not my intent. Their
points
> are valid and should be explored. My only criticism is that their
messages
> both seemed to assume the worst and that is not, IMHO, a positive way to
> approach these issues.
>
> J. Scott Evans
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
> To: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
> Cc: <carmody@lawyer.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: Summary of Responses 82-89
>
>
> >
> > Wait a minute. While the surveys are informative, they are hardly
> > dispositive. As we originally agreed, we accepted the unscientific
nature
> > of them because we were always going to use our independent judgement.
> >
> > I and other have forwarded papers to the group that raise very serious
> > issues in need of reform. When are we going to discuss those?
> >
> > PS. In case you missed it, here's a link to mine again:
> > http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf
> >
> > While it's important to know what the respondents to the survey think,
> > survey collation is hardly the extent of the knowledge and experience
the
> > members of this group bring to the table.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, Jim you are not off the hook yet!!!!! We still have to review the
> > > responses received from the ICANN website (which I have not yet
received
> > > from ICANN) and then the Chairs will try to accumulate everyone's
> summaries
> > > and prepare a draft report, but we will want everyone's input on the
> draft
> > > before we final it and send it to NC.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Carmody [mailto:carmodyjim@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 5:13 PM
> > > To: cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Summary of Responses 82-89
> > >
> > >
> > > Attached. I have really enjoyed working with all of
> > > you and will enjoy reading the final report.
> > >
> > > Best wishes from Houston,
> > > Jim Carmody
> > >
> > > =====
> > > James A. Carmody, nn5o, carmody@lawyer.com
> > > Voice Mail: 713 446 4234; eFax: 815 461 5321
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
> > > http://sports.yahoo.com
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> > -->It's warm here.<--
> >
> >
>
>
--
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|