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