Dear All:
This message shall serve as my first official communication to the Task
Force regarding moving this process forward. I sent out a message
earlier requesting a response regarding your continued participation in this
Task Force. From the responses I have received, I believe the following
people wish to continue participating on this Task Force:
Caroline Chicoine, Jeff Neuman, Katrina Burchell, M. Scott Donahey,
Ethan Katsh, John Berryhill, Mac Waldbaum, Dan Steinberg
The following person cannot continue:
F. Peter Philips - as a CPR provider representative
I have not heard from the following people (or if I have their response was
erased during a computer glitch on my end):
Sarah Deutsch, Neil Dundas, Antonio Harris, Michael Palage, Dr.
Joelle Thibault; Tim Cole, Erik Wilbers, Joon Hyung Hong and Graeme
Dinwoodie.
If any of the above are still interested, please send me an e-mail to
confirm your continued participation before November 13,
2002.
In addition, I note that Asian Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Centre does not have a representative or panelist
representative on this Task Force and I would like to offer an invitation to
this organization to place a provider and panelist representative on the Task
Force. I think it would be valuable to have an Asian provider's
perspective on the issues considered by this group.
Given that this Task Force finds itself caught between the old ICANN policy
development process and the new PDP which is attached as Appendix 1 to the new
ICANN by-laws adopted in Shanghai, I propose that we continue this Task Force
on a hybrid basis.
My first proposal is that the Task Force aim to have a preliminary report
consisting of an analysis of the survey results and the various papers which
have been submitted to the Task Force by December 15, 2002. Once this
preliminary report is complete, I propose that we then take up the schedule
set out in the new PDP with just minor modifications. I have listed this
proposed schedule below and I have highlighted the changes below:
d. Collection of Information.
1. Constituency Statements. The
Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of
their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each
Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration.
This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a
formal statement to the task force chair (each, a "Constituency Statement")
within thirty-five (35) calendar days after presentation of the
preliminary report. Every Constituency Statement shall include at
least the following:
(i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a
clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue;
(ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached,
a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members;
(iii) A clear statement of how the
constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement
should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other
means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated
or otherwise submitted their views;
(iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect
the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency;
and
(v) An analysis of the period of time that
would likely be necessary to implement the policy.
e. Task Force Report.
The task force, working with the Task Force
chair, shall compile the Constituency
Statements, preliminary report, and other information
or reports, as applicable, into a single document ("Draft
Task Force Report") and distribute the Draft Task
Force Report to the full Names Counsel no later than the spring
ICANN meeting. The task force shall have a final task force meeting
within ten (10) days after the date of
distribution of the Draft Task Force Report to
deliberate the issues and try and reach a Supermajority Vote. Within five
(5) calendar days after the final task force meeting, the task
force shall create the final task force report (the "Task Force
Report") and post it on the Comment Site. Each Task Force Report must
include:
1. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote
position of the task force on the issue;
2. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a
clear statement of all positions espoused by task force members submitted
within the twenty-day timeline for submission of constituency reports. Each
statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying the position
and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position;
3. An analysis of how the issue would affect each
constituency of the task force, including any financial impact on the
constituency;
4. An analysis of the period of time that would
likely be necessary to implement the policy; and
5. The advice of any outside advisors appointed to
the task force by the Council, accompanied by a detailed statement of the
advisors' (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential
conflicts of interest.
As many of you know the terms of reference for this Task Force are
established. I have listed below those issues that we must tackle
during the next very chaotic months:
·
forum shopping
·
publication of complaints and
answers
·
appeals
·
reverse domain name hijacking
·
quality of decisions
·
speed of decisions
·
precedential affect of decisions within and
outside of UDRP
·
costs
·
continuity of decisions among and within
panels
·
res judicata effect of decisions within and
outside the UDRP
·
requirements for bad faith (i.e., domain name
registration and/or use)
·
fairness of Provider’s supplemental
rules
·
ability to amend complaint
Task Force
reviews results of questionnaire, as well as any third party studies
directed to the UDRP including without limitation the Syracuse University
study, the Max Plank Institute study and the Rose Communication study. Based on the results of the
questionnaire and those studies, the Task Force shall prepare a Report
summarizing the areas identified as needing reform and the recommendations
to implement such reform.
While it has been suggested
by Jeff Neuman that the survey results and/or the terms of reference are no
longer timely, I disagree. I believe the issues set out above still
remain very relevant. In addition, I think the survey results are a
good snap shot of the community response to the UDRP and I think it is
important that they are considered by this group.
I would like to have a
conference call for this group on November 20th if at all possible. To
this end, I would ask that everyone let me know what time U.S. Eastern
Standard time is most convenient for such a call. We need to begin
organizing and dividing up the work so that we can have ourselves a
preliminary report for December 15, 2002.
I would also ask that each of
you review my suggested strategy for moving forward and let me know if you
have any major objections/suggestions for me.
I look forward to hearing
from each of you very soon.
Kind regards.
J. Scott Evans
ADAMS,
SCHWARTZ & EVANS, P.A.
jse@adamspat.com
PH: (704)
375-9249
FX: (704)
375-0729