RE: [nc-udrp] Memo re access to UDRP decisions

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

"The true potential obstacle is the means used to collect the search
data.  If providers are responsible for detailing all of the characteristics
needed for the search engine to work, that is a significant additional
responsibility."

Tim, I agree and note that it is easy enough to have the "raw data" quickly
and easily available.  It is the value added data we all want, and that
costs money.  That is why we have companies like Lexis and Westlaw that
provide raw data in a user friendly form and no big surprise that they o not
provide it for free and quite frankly, I would not expect them to.

"It also raises a question as to the accuracy or consistency
of search elements, since many of them are subjective and may be interpreted
differently by different providers or panelists."

Tim I agree that this is something we need to be careful of with whatever
proposal we put forth


-----Original Message-----
From: Cole, Tim [mailto:tcole@arb-forum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:10 PM
To: 'Ethan Katsh'
Cc: UDRP Task Force
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] Memo re access to UDRP decisions


Thank you Ethan for all the work you are putting into this important issue.
Although this isn't a solution, I would like to also note that the Forum now
has a full text search function included in its decision search options,
along with parties, domain names, status, dates, etc. at
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions.asp.  Of course neither the WIPO
search engine nor the Forum search engine will permit searches of ALL
decisions.  Westlaw and Butterworths Lexis maintain databases with all UDRP
decisions and LexisNexis is preparing to add them in the near future.  Of
course, those are subscription services, but they do support fairly
extensive and familiar search engine capability.

The Forum has also acquired the original eResolution computer server that
contains all of the eResolution decisions.  We have made offers to ICANN to
provide a permanent home for these on our website with a similar search
engine, but have yet to receive approval from ICANN to do so.

I would like to respond to one comment made in your report about incentives
to participate.  Although dispute providers may be competitors on one level,
I see no reason why that fact would generate opposition to a helpful search
engine.  The true potential obstacle is the means used to collect the search
data.  If providers are responsible for detailing all of the characteristics
needed for the search engine to work, that is a significant additional
responsibility.  It also raises a question as to the accuracy or consistency
of search elements, since many of them are subjective and may be interpreted
differently by different providers or panelists.

I would also be interested in hearing the input of other potential users
about the elements identified in the search engine.  Do they adequately
address the issues of importance to parties who may use a search engine?

Timothy S. Cole
Director, Internet Dispute Solutions
National Arbitration Forum
651.604.6725
800.474.2371
tcole@arb-forum.com
www.arbitration-forum.com

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ethan Katsh [mailto:katsh@disputes.net] 
Sent:	Sunday, December 01, 2002 2:42 PM
To:	UDRP Task Force
Subject:	[nc-udrp] Memo re access to UDRP decisions

	During our last conference call, I was asked to add some of my own 
writings to the list of papers the task force would consider. Rather than 
submit something from the past, I have placed a fairly short memo addressed 
to the Task Force at
http://www.disputes.org/udrp/  It is very focused on a particular problem, 
access to the UDRP decisions of panelists, and suggests that this is one 
area where there are improvements that could and should be made.

Ethan Katsh
Professor and Director
Center for Information Technology
and Dispute Resolution
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
katsh@legal.umass.edu
http://www.umass.edu/dispute