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

[James Carmody <carmodyjim@yahoo.com>]

I would also be happy to help summarize.  Perhaps we
could split it up by questions--say 2 members work on
1-5 and then try for a consensus summary.
Jim Carmody
--- Ethan Katsh <katsh@legal.umass.edu> wrote:
>          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
> >
> >
> 


=====
James A. Carmody, nn5o, carmody@lawyer.com
http://www.lawyers.com/jacarmodypc
Voice Mail: 713 446 4234; eFax: 815 461 5321

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com