Re: [nc-udrp] the UDRP task force - report

[Ethan Katsh <katsh@legal.umass.edu>]

         Milton asks for volunteers to summarize the survey results. I am 
not eager to take that on but I would be willing to look through what 
people have submitted and see if it is possible to at least generate a 
clear list of issues/recommendations involving procedural concerns. If some 
others were willing to assist with this, I think it could be done fairly 
quickly.

Ethan

At 09:42 AM 7/8/02 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Katrina:
>Initiative is a good thing - lack of it is why the Task Force
>is foundering now.
>
>As a skeleton outline of a report your proposal is as good as any.
>Of course, such an outline can be easily proposed and accepted
>because it contains no specific content or proposals, and therefore
>is unobjectionable. The hard part will be agreeing on changes (or
>the absence of change), or even identifying the scope of any
>reform or change.
>
>I would propose under "Recommendations" having two sections:
>"Procedural" and "Substantive"
>
>I would also caution this group against investing a great amount
>of time in fiddling with the survey results. It is useful to have
>some expressions of opinion, and we should take note of the
>results, but what do they prove, really? The survey has already
>displaced too much of our energies. We should appoint one person
>to summarize the results and get on with the harder and
>more important work of deciding what needs to be changed
>and what doesn't. There is a great deal of legal, dispute resolution,
>Internet and trademark expertise on this Task Force. It should
>not be reduced to opinion polling.
>
>Are there any volunteers to summarize the survey results?
>This should be a ministerial function, not an interpretive one.
>
> >>> "Katrina Burchell" <Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com> 07/05/02 10:23AM >>>
>
>
>
>I therefore took it on myself to have a look through the debate on this
>subject and I have attached a draft of an outline of a report which I
>think we could pad out together.  Let me say that I was initially
>reluctant to do this for fear of being criticised for driving forward my
>own views on the subject of reform - which some of you wont agree with -
>and also because in my experience if you put your head above the parapet
>you usually get shot at - but whatever, here goes....
>
>I havent put much meat on the attached simply because if you all shout me
>down I would have wasted my time.  If  you like this sort of format and
>some of the suggestions I make in it (at the moment just ideas about how
>it should look) then, Im happy to co-ordinate your input, go through the
>remaining emails on my computer regarding the responses and knock it into
>a better shape.
>
>let me know
>
>Katrina
>
>