[nc-udrp] UDRP task force teleconf minutes Nov 19, 2002

["DNSO SECRETARIAT" <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>]

Please find attached the minutes of the November 19 teleconference.
DNSO Secretariat

Title: notes/20020228.NCteleconf-agenda.html

ICANN/DNSO

DNSO Names Council UDRP Task Force teleconference -

Tuesday 19 November 2002

---

19 November 2002.

Attendees:

J. Scott Evans - DNSO NC IP constituency - Non-voting Chair
Maxim Waldbaum - WIPO Panelist
Antonio Harris - ISPCP Constituency
Philip Sheppard - Complainant
Michael Palage - Registrar constituency
Ethan Katsh - eResolution Panelist
Caroline Chicoine - IPC representative
Dan Steinberg - GA Member
Tim Cole - NAF Provider
M. Scott Donahey - CPR Panelist

Apologies:
Michael Froomkin - NCDNHC
Sarah Deutsch - Business constituency
John Berryhill - Respondent
Neil Dundas - ccTLD
Graeme Dinwoodie - Independent Academic Expert

The conference MPEG3 recording will be provided by Philippe Renaut, DNSO Secretariat
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20021119.NCUDRPTF-minutes.mp3

 

AGENDA:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00436.html

Item 1. Appointment of scribe:

Glen de St. Gery, DNSO Secretariat

Item 2 . Attendees.

See list above

Item 3 Update on task Force Participation

J. Scott Evans welcomed all the participants.

J. Scott Evans reported that an invitation, to appoint a representative to join the NC UDRP task force had been sent to the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre to both the Beijing and Hong Kong addresses but not a specific person.
M. Scott Donahey said that he would send one to Christopher To.

Erick Iriate Ahon, NCDNHC and Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah, had not been identified on J. Scott Evans list and thus not been contacted.

EriK Wilbers, a WIPO Provider representative had not been heard from.

Jeff Neuman indicated that he would not be continuing, but that gTLD registry constituency would appoint someone which has not been done to date.
F. Peter Phillips indicated that he would not be going forward.
Milton Mueller will still be monitoring the list but not actively participate.
Dr. Joon Hyung Hong indicated that he would not take part in the teleconferences but that he would assist with the final report and make comments.
Dr. Joelle Thibault should be contacted but it was probable that she was no longer interested.

Item 4 : Review Terms of Reference and purpose of task Force
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00409.html
Identification of issues in Terms of Reference (TOR):

· 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

Jeff Neuman suggested a new TOR list be opened and reevaluated as stock procedure and other procedures expedited for dispute resolution evaluation have come into place.
However,
1. the issues are very different
2. there will be an evaluation as part of the gTLD registry task force, and nothing prevents the present task force from pointing to one or more if it is thought that there are features identified in the TOR addressed.

Purpose of the Task Force:
J. Scott Evans explained that the Task Force found itself caught between the old ICANN policy development process and the new Policy Development Process in the new ICANN by-laws adopted in Shanghai, thus proposed to continue on a hybrid basis.
The purpose of the task force is to take in information, analyze it, present the information in the form of a report to the Board, and not make decisions. Questioned about recommendations, J. Scott Evans emphasized that to make recommendations a clear consensus is needed.
It was identified that the questionnaire was put both on the DNSO and the ICANN website and that the responses analyzed were from the DNSO web site. These would be recirculated together with Caroline's charts.
Scott Donahey challenged the purpose of the group asking why representation and expertise were needed when the tasks included gathering numbers and summarizing.

The views expressed on the larger issues of the UDRP may be classified in two different camps:
- those who thought that the UDRP is efficient dispute resolution policy
- those who think that it is an aberration and expansion beyond territorial bounds
While Mike Plague said there was a camp in the middle expressed by John Berryhill where he pointed to supplemental rules and inconsistencies. In addition from Registrar feedback there have been certain changes brought about under the UDRP and he felt that it was important to get down to the day to day business where these policies played out.

Scott Donahey challenged the purpose of the group asking why representation and expertise were needed when the tasks included gathering numbers and summarizing.

J. Scott Evans emphasised the aim and the procedure of collecting input from as broad a community as possible, looking for areas of consensus, if any and making recommendations which would be put out for public comment to be included in the final report sent to the Board.

Task for group 2:

  Various papers had been presented and it was decided to list these, plus new ones, put them up on the DNSO website for reference and have a second group analyse them.
Due to the short time frame, no new material will be solicited, only identified material will be used.

 

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, it was proposed to take up the schedule set out in the new Policy Development Procedure with minor modifications. The proposed schedule is listed in:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00409.html and the changes have been highlighted.

Frustration was expressed at the aggressive timetable.
It was decided to look at the work to be done before a final date was set and this would then have to be strictly adhered to according to timelines set out in the Policy Development Procedure.

Item 5. Division of labour and Assignments

Task for group 1.
Analyze the responses from the ICANN web site. Look at Caroline's summary and the constituency summaries that were drawn on.

Task for group 2:
  Summary and analysis of various papers presented.
An objective analysis is required and should be separated from a subjective analysis based on experience and expertise

Caroline Chicoine and J. Scott Evans would make a list of the available resources and circulate them within the coming week.

Scott Donahey should check for missing items but no new material will be solicited, only identified material will be used.

Secretariat will put repository list on the DNSO website linked to papers and documents.

Take survey results and make categories, then put responses from
- the academic and legal community in one list,
- survey results pointed to
- academic
- technical amendments

Look for issues that need reform

Item 6: Timelines and stages for progress

Within a week Caroline Chicoine and J. Scott Evans identify the universe of information

Decide timelines and assignments when information is available.

Report to the Names Council on December 14, what has been done and timelines decided upon.

Item 7: Next Conference call

The next UDRP task force teleconference will be held on 4 December 2002 at the following time:

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Local time between November and end March, WINTER in the NORTHERN hemisphere
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         15:00
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Jerusalem, Israel                          UTC+2+ODST  17:00    
    California, Los Angeles, USA               UTC-8+0DST   7:00
    St. Louis, USA                             UTC-6+0DST  9:00
    Phoenix, USA                               UTC-7+0DST   8:00
    Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+0DST  10:00
    Johannesburg, South Africa                 UTC+2+0DST  17:00
    London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+0DST  15:00
    Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+0DST  16:00
    Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+0DST  16:00
    Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+0DST  16:00
    Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+0DST  16:00
    China,                                     UTC+8+0DST  23:00
    Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  00:00
    Tokyo,Japan                                UTC+9+0DST  00:00 
    Sydney, Australia                          UTC+10+1DST 02:00 Thursday
    Melbourne, Australia                       UTC+10+1DST 02:00 Thursday
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of March (with some exceptions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

The conference call after the December 4 one will be moved to a 16:00 EST to fit in better with the Asian members.
Item 8. AOB

Etan Katsh commented that the survey was designed taking into account the original terms of reference and the focus should be on these, and J.Scott Evans repeated that the terms of reference were mentioned in the e-mail.

J. Scott Evans thanked everyone for being on the call and said that the large calls would mostly be one hour, but smaller groups may be set up.

Call ended 11:00 EST

 

---

Information from:

© DNSO Names Council