<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[nc-udrp] Re: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON RECEIPT
- To: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>, UDRP Task Force <nc-udrp@dnso.org>, "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>, "SARAH B. DEUTSCH" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>, ndundas@africaip.com, harris@cabase.org.ar, froomkin@law.miami.edu, Michael Palage <michael@palage.com>, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, msd@tzmm.com, katsh@legal.umass.edu, carmody@lawyer.com, tcole@arb-forum.com, jberryhill@ddhs.com, Mac Waldbaum <mwaldbaum@salans.com>, erik.wilbers@wipo.int, sythesis@videotron.ca, joonh@chollian.net, gdinwood@kentlaw.edu, ramesh@mimos.my, faia@amauta.rep.net.pe
- Subject: [nc-udrp] Re: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON RECEIPT
- From: "James A. Carmody" <carmodyjim@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:34:13 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: DNSO SECRETARIAT <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>
- In-Reply-To: <00b901c29bac$27c38380$1c00a8c0@adamspat.com>
- Reply-To: carmody@lawyer.com
- Sender: owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org
Scltt:
I got the message and will revert with a statement of
my interest. Good meeting today.
Jim Carmody
--- "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com> wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> My apologies again for the technical glitch that
> kept you all from receiving this message yesterday.
> As we agreed on the call earlier, please review the
> materials listed in this message and attached
> hereto. By Wednesday, December 11, 2002, everyone
> should identify the area in which they wish to
> concentrate their efforts as we distill this
> information. Essentially, I envision two groups:
> 1) working on the summarizing and identifying issues
> presented in the 11 papers listed below and 2)
> another group working with the survey responses.
>
> Please post all discussion to the list.
>
> Thank you again for your time and dedication.
>
> Regards.
>
> J. Scott
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A. The most current version of the "UDRP Review and
> Evaluation, Terms
> of Reference" document can be found at
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
>
> B. DNSO UDRP Questionnaire (includes French and
> Spanish links) -
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html
>
> C. All responses (155) per question can be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp1.txt
> Each individual response per questionnaire can be
> found at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp2.txt
>
> D. ICANN UDRP Questionnaire (see attachment below)
>
> E. Responses to ICANN Questionnaire (see attachment
> below)
>
> F. Task Force summaries (see attachments below)
> Katrina Burchell (1-9, 56-65)
> J. Scott Evans (25-32)
> Maxim H. Waldbaum (108-115)
> Prof. Dr. Hong (124-131)
> M. Scott Donahey (66-73)
> James A. Carmody (82-89)
> Neil Dundas (9-16)
> Jeffrey J. Neuman (17-24)
> Timothy S. Cole (90-98)
> Graeme Dinwoodie (132-140)
>
> G. Chicoine "summary of summaries" (see attachment)
> In general, I identified the following POTENTIAL
> areas of reform.
>
> Procedural Issues
> (1) Make the process of electronic versus paper
> filing of complaint and exhibits more clear.
> (2) Improve searchability of decisions
> (3) Difficulty finding Registrar's rules that
> applied at the time the Registrant registered the
> domain name
> (4) Improve accuracy, availability and searchability
> of Whois information
> (5) Improve the effectuation of a
> transfer/cancellation order
> (6) Revisit who should select provider
> (7) Amendment of complaints under certain limited
> circumstances
> (8) Amendment of responses under certain limited
> circumstances
> (9) Transfer of case to another Provider under
> certain limited circumstances
> (10) Uniformity of supplemental rules
> (11) Public accessibility of complaints and answers
> with certain limitations/exceptions
> (12) Central availability of UDRP decisions
> (13) No refiling of UDRP involving same domain name
> and same registrant except under certain limited
> circumstances.
> (14) Ability to withdraw complaint, but under
> certain circumstances and with certain consequences
> (with prejudice, fine)
> (15) instituting some sort of penalty for a finding
> of reverse domain name hijacking
> (16) impose quality control measures with respect to
> provider and panelists
> (17) allow for partial refund of provider fee
> depending if and when a case settles.
>
> Substantive Issues
> (1) Interpretation of "identical or confusingly
> similar to"
> (2) Whether to include some affirmative defenses
> expressly in the policy
> (3) Mixed view on precedential value of decisions
> (4) Mixed view on ability to appeal (if so, some
> recommendations included same provider, but
> different panelists; different provider; appealing
> party pays for appeal, but costs for appellant if
> successful; level of deference with respect to
> findings of fact "abuse of discretion and with
> respect to law" or "de novo")
> (5) changing "registration and use" to "registration
> or use"
> (6) Allow pending trademark applications as a basis
> for establishing rights in a mark provided use has
> occurred
> (7) no expansion of scope of disputes handled under
> UDRP except as set forth above
>
>
> H. Third party studies/papers. Caroline could not
> find a link for the Rose Communications, S.L. paper
> so it is attached.
>
> (1) ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" -
> Causes and
> (Partial) Cures, Prof. A. Michael Froomkin -
> http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf
>
> (2) Max Plank Institute Study -
>
http://www.intellecprop.mpg.de/Online-Publikationen/2002/UDRP-study-final-02
> .pdf
>
> (3) Rough Justice, Prof. Milton Mueller -
> http://www.acm.org/usacm/IG/roughjustice.pdf
>
> (4) UDRP-A Success Story? A Rebuttal to the Analysis
> and Conclusions
> of Professor Milton Mueller in Rough Justice, N.
> Branthover (INTA) -
>
http://www.inta.org/downloads/tap_udrp_1paper2002.pdf
>
> (5) Divergence in the UDRP and the Need for
> Appellate Review, M.
> Scott Donahey -
> http://www.udrplaw.net/DonaheyPaper.htm
>
> (6) Designing Non-National Systems: The Case of the
> Uniform Domain
> Name Dispute Resolution Policy, L. Helfer and G.
> Dinwoodie -
>
http://www.kentlaw.edu/depts/ipp/intl-courts/docs/dh.pdf
>
> (7) Fair.com, Prof. Michael Geist -
> http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf
>
> (8) Fundamentally Fair.com? An Update on Bias
> Allegations and the
> ICANN UDRP, Prof. Michael Geist -
> http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/fairupdate.pdf
>
> (9) The UDRP by All Accounts Works Effectively -
> Rebuttal to
> Analysis and Conclusions of Professor Michael Geist
> in "Fair.com?" and
> "Fundamentally Fair.com?", INTA Internet Committee -
>
http://www.inta.org/downloads/tap_udrp_2paper2002.pdf
>
> (10) A Response to INTA's Rebuttal of Fair.com
> (Prof. Michael Geist)
> - http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistintaresp.pdf
>
> (11) Katsh Memo addressed to the Task Force at
> http://www.disputes.org/udrp/
>
> (12) Patrick L. Jones article at
> http://www.udrplaw.net/UDRPReview1.htm
>
>
> Useful web site at
>
> http://www.udrplaw.net/UDRPReview.htm
>
>
>
> Caroline G. Chicoine - cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com
> (IPC)
> Sarah Deutsch - sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
> (Business)
> Neil Duncan Dundas - ndundas@africaip.com (ccTLD)
> J. Scott Evans - jse@adamspat.com (Chair)
> Antonio Harris - harris@cabase.org.ar (ISP)
> Michael Froomkin - froomkin@law.miami.edu (NCDNH)
> Michael Palage - michael@palage.com (Registrar)
> Philip Sheppard -philip.sheppard@aim.be
> (Complainant)
> M. Scott Donahey - msd@tzmm.com (CPR Panelist)
> Ethan Katsh - katsh@legal.umass.edu (eResolution
> Panelist)
> James A. Carmody - carmody@lawyer.com (NAF Panelist)
> Tim Cole - tcole@arb-forum.com (NAF Provider)
> John Berryhill - jberryhill@ddhs.com (Respondent)
> Maxim Waldbaum - mwaldbaum@salans.com (WIPO
> Panelist)
>
=== message truncated ===
<HR>
<!-- saved from url=(0022)http://internet.e-mail -->
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>ICANN | DNSO Names Council UDRP Questionnaire
</TITLE>
<META CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"
HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type">
<STYLE type="text/css">
<!--
blockquote, input, p, td {font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif}
-->
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<FORM
ACTION="http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/udrp-survey.cgi"
METHOD="POST" ENCTYPE="x-www-form-urlencoded">
<TABLE align=center WIDTH="95%" BORDER="0"
CELLSPACING="2" CELLPADDING="0">
<tr>
<TD><img
src="http://www.icann.org/logos/icann-logo.gif"
width="188" height="145" align="BOTTOM"
alt="ICANN Logo"></TD>
<TD align="center"><B><font size="+3">DNSO Names
Council UDRP Questionnaire</font></B></TD>
</TR>
<tr>
<td colspan=2>
<HR NOSHADE>
<p>The ICANN Domain Names Supporting
Organization (DNSO) is conducting
a study of the <a href="/udrp/">Uniform
Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution
Policy</a> (UDRP). The DNSO invites you to
participate by filling out
the following survey and clicking the
"SUBMIT FORM" button
at the bottom. </p>
<table width="50%" border="0" align="center">
<tr>
<td>
<div align="center"><a
href="/dnso/udrp-survey-es-08jan02.htm">En
Español</a></div>
</td>
<td>
<div align="center"><a
href="/dnso/udrp-survey-fr-15jan02.htm">En
français</a></div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br>
<hr NOSHADE>
<p>Pursuant to the UDRP Review and Evaluation
Terms of Reference, version
2, which can be found at <a
href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html">
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html</a>,
the UDRP Review and Evaluation Task Force
hereby submits a questionnaire
to solicit public comment through a bottom
up, consensus-building DSNO
process regarding various aspects of the
existing UDRP. The Task Force
has drafted this questionnaire with an eye
towards not only identifying
potential areas of reform, but also
generating useful suggestions to
the extent that modifications to the UDRP
are suggested. Therefore,
to the extent that your responses are
critical to the existing UDRP,
we request that your responses also include
proposed solutions.</p>
<table align=center width="70%" border="5">
<tr>
<td align=center
bgcolor="#FFFF00"><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif" color="#FF0000">Responses to
this questionnaire must
be submitted no later than February 6,
2002.</font></b></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>We thank you for your time and
consideration in completing this questionnaire.</p>
<p>UDRP Review and Evaluation Task Force<br>
November 5, 2001</p>
<p> </p>
<table width="100%" border="3">
<tr>
<td align=center
bgcolor="#00FFFF"><b><font size="+2" face="Arial,
Helvetica,
san-serif">QUESTIONNAIRE</font></b></td>
</tr>
</table>
<input type="hidden" name="0.0:language"
value="english">
<table>
<tr>
<td align="right">Your E-mail <font
color="#FF0000">(Required*)</font> </td>
<td align="left">
<input type="text"
name="0.1:e-mail:E,E-Mail" size="35">
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="right">First
Name </td>
<td align="left">
<input type="text" name="0.2:first-name"
size="35">
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="right">Last
Name </td>
<td align="left">
<input type="text" name="0.3:last-name"
size="35">
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<blockquote>
<p> * Your comments will be published for
public review, not associated
with your identity (provided above). Your
e-mail address will be used
to send a copy of your responses back to
you, but will not be provided
to third parties without your permission.
Your name and organization
may be published as part of a list of
responding parties.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="1"></a>1. Please put a check next
to each category that applies
to you.</p>
<p>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.1"
value="Constituency Member">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Constituency member.<br>
Please indicate which Constituency:</font>
<select name="1.1.1">
<option>[choose constituency]</option>
<option>Business</option>
<option>ccTLD</option>
<option>gTLD</option>
<option>Intellectual Property</option>
<option>ISP</option>
<option>Non-Commercial</option>
<option>Registrars</option>
</select>
</p>
<p>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.2"
value="Complainant">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Complainant in UDRP proceeding.
Please give details:</font> </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have been/am
<input type="radio" name="1.2.1"
value="party">
a party
<input type="radio" name="1.2.1"
value="counsel">
counsel. </p>
<p>How many proceedings brought, either as
party or counsel?
<select name="1.2.2">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2-5">2-5</option>
<option value="6-10">6-10</option>
<option value="11-25">11-25</option>
<option value="More">More than
25</option>
</select>
</p>
<p>How many domain names were involved in
total?
<select name="1.2.3">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2-5" >2-5</option>
<option value="6-10">6-10</option>
<option value="11-25">11-25</option>
<option value="More">More than
25</option>
</select>
</p>
<p>Which providers have you used?</p>
<p>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.2.4.1"
value="CPR">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">CPR</font><br>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.2.4.2"
value="eRes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">eResolution/Disputes.org<br>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.2.4.3"
value="NAF">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">NAF</font><br>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.2.4.4"
value="WIPO">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">WIPO</font> </font></p>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, san-serif">
<p>Did you win or lose?
<select name="1.2.5">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option>Won</option>
<option>Lost</option>
<option>Some of each</option>
</select>
</p>
<p>How many panelists were appointed for the
proceeding(s)?<br>
<select name="1.2.6">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option>1</option>
<option>3</option>
<option>Sometimes 1, sometimes
3</option>
</select>
</p>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, san-serif">
<p>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.3"
value="Respondent">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Respondent in UDRP proceeding.
Please give details:</font> </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have been/am
<input type="radio" name="1.3.1"
value="party">
a party
<input type="radio" name="1.3.1"
value="counsel">
counsel.</p>
<p>How many proceedings defended, either as
party or counsel?
<select name="1.3.2">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2-5">2-5</option>
<option value="6-10">6-10</option>
<option value="11-25">11-25</option>
<option value="More">More than
25</option>
</select>
</p>
<p>How many domain names were involved in
total?
<select name="1.3.3">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2-5" >2-5</option>
<option value="6-10">6-10</option>
<option value="11-25">11-25</option>
<option value="More">More than
25</option>
</select>
</p>
<p>Which providers have you used?</p>
<p>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.3.4.1"
value="CPR">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">CPR</font><br>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.3.4.2"
value="eRes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">eResolution/Disputes.org<br>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.3.4.3"
value="NAF">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">NAF</font><br>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.3.4.4"
value="WIPO">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">WIPO</font> </font></p>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, san-serif">
<p>Did you win or lose?
<select name="1.3.5">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option>Won</option>
<option>Lost</option>
<option>Some of each</option>
</select>
</p>
<p>How many panelists were appointed for the
proceeding(s)?<br>
<select name="1.3.6">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option>1</option>
<option>3</option>
<option>Sometimes 1, sometimes
3</option>
</select>
</p>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, san-serif">
<p>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.4"
value="Panelist">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">UDRP Panelist. Please give
details:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p>For which provider?</p>
<p>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.4.1.1"
value="CPR">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">CPR</font><br>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.4.2.2"
value="eRes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">eResolution/Disputes.org<br>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.4.3.3"
value="NAF">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">NAF</font><br>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.4.4.4"
value="WIPO">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">WIPO</font> </font></p>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, san-serif">
<p>How many proceedings total?
<select name="1.4.2">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2-5">2-5</option>
<option value="6-10">6-10</option>
<option value="11-25">11-25</option>
<option value="More">More than
25</option>
</select>
</p>
<p>How many domain names were involved in
total?
<select name="1.4.3">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2-5" >2-5</option>
<option value="6-10">6-10</option>
<option value="11-25">11-25</option>
<option value="More">More than
25</option>
</select>
</p>
<p>How many panelists were appointed for the
proceeding(s)?<br>
<select name="1.4.4">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option>1</option>
<option>3</option>
<option>Sometimes 1, sometimes
3</option>
</select>
</p>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, san-serif">
<p>
<input type="checkbox" name="1.5"
value="Other">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Other (Please identify your
primary interest in the UDRP):</font></p>
<textarea name="1.5.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
<p>Are you the registrant of any domain names?
<input type="radio" name="1.6" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="1.6" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, how many domains have you
registered?
<select name="1.7">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2-5" >2-5</option>
<option value="6-10">6-10</option>
<option value="11-25">11-25</option>
<option value="More">More than 25</option>
</select>
</p>
<p><i>IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN A PARTY TO OR
COUNSEL FOR A PARTY IN AN ICANN
UDRP PROCEEDING, PLEASE <a href="#12">SKIP
TO QUESTION 12</a>.</i></p>
<p>IF YOU HAVE BEEN A PARTY TO OR COUNSEL FOR
A PARTY IN AN ICANN UDRP
PROCEEDING, PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS
2-11.</p>
<p><a name="2"></a>2. Why did you decide to
use the UDRP to try to reclaim
a domain name rather than using other means
(please rank the factors
using a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 being the
most important factor and
4 being the least important)?</p>
<p>
<select name="2.1" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
</select>
Cost of proceedings <br>
<select name="2.2" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
</select>
Speed of proceedings <br>
<select name="2.3" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
</select>
Quality of decisions <br>
<select name="2.4" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
</select>
Other:<br>
<input type="text" name="2.5" size="45">
</p>
<p><a name="3"></a>3. In selecting a Provider,
please rank the factors
that most influenced your decision? (1=most
influential)</p>
<p>
<select name="3.1" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
<option value="6">6</option>
</select>
Provider reputation <br>
<select name="3.2" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
<option value="6">6</option>
</select>
Provider’s supplemental rules <br>
<select name="3.3" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
<option value="6">6</option>
</select>
Experience of Panelists <br>
<select name="3.4" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
<option value="6">6</option>
</select>
Quality of decisions <br>
<select name="3.5" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
<option value="6">6</option>
</select>
Geographical diversity of panelists <br>
<select name="3.6" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
<option value="6">6</option>
</select>
Other (please specify):<br>
<input type="text" name="3.7" size="45">
</p>
<p>4. Was the process sufficiently clear to
you?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="4.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="4.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="4.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p>5. Did you feel that the panelist/panelists
were impartial and experienced
in handling the case?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="5.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="5.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="5.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="6"></a>6. Did you have any
communication difficulties such
as a language barrier?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="6.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="6.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, please describe your experience.
<br>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="6.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="7"></a>7. Were you represented by
counsel?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="7.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="7.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If not, why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="7.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="8"></a>8. Did you experience any
difficulties in collecting
or submitting proofs or other materials in
the process of dispute resolution?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="8.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="8.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, please describe.</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="8.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="9"></a>9. If you were the
Respondent and did not respond to
the complaint, why did you decide not to
respond?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="9.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="10"></a>10. Have you ever
challenged a UDRP decision in court?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="10.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="10.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or Why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="10.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="11"></a>11. If you were a
Complainant and a transfer or cancellation
was ordered, did you experience any
difficulty having the order implemented?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="11.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="11.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, please describe your experience.</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="11.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="12"></a>12. Have you ever decided
against filing a UDRP complaint?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="12.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="12.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, why (please rank the factors using a
scale from 1 to 5, with
1 being the most important factor and 5
being the least important)?
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
<select name="12.1" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
</select>
Cost of proceedings<br>
<select name="12.2" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
</select>
Speed of proceedings<br>
<select name="12.3" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
</select>
Quality of decisions<br>
<select name="12.4" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
</select>
Language Barriers<br>
<select name="12.5" size="1">
<option>[choose]</option>
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
</select>
Other (please specify below):<br>
<textarea name="12.6" rows="4"
cols="54"></textarea>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="13"></a>13. Who do you believe
should be responsible for the
selection of the provider?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="13.0"
value="Complainant">
Complainant<br>
<input type="radio" name="13.0"
value="Respondent">
Respondent<br>
<input type="radio" name="13.0"
value="Both Complainant and Respondent">
Both Complainant and Respondent <br>
<input type="radio" name="13.0"
value="Neither, provider should be selected randomly">
Neither, provider should be selected
randomly <br>
<input type="radio" name="13.0"
value="Other">
Other (please explain below)<br>
<textarea name="13.1" rows="4"
cols="54"></textarea>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="14"></a>14. Should complainants be
allowed to amend their
complaint?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="14.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="14.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not, and if so, under what
circumstances?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="14.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="15"></a>15. Should Respondents be
allowed to amend their responses?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="15.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="15.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not, and if so, under what
circumstances?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="15.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="16"></a>16. Under what
circumstances, if any, should a complainant
or respondent be able to transfer a UDRP
case from one Provider to another
Provider and what would the process look
like?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="16.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="17"></a>17. Are the notice
provisions under the UDRP adequate?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="17.0" value="yes">
Yes
<input type="radio" name="17.0" value="no">
No</p>
Why or why not, and if not, how could they be
improved?
<p></p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="17.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="18"></a>18. Do you believe any
changes to a Provider's Supplemental
Rules are necessary?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="18.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="18.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, please identify the Provider(s) and
the revisions and/or additions
you recommend.</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="18.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="19"></a>19. Do you believe the
providers' supplemental rules
should be uniform?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="19.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="19.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="19.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="20"></a>20. Do you believe copies
of the complaints and responses
should be publicly accessible?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="20.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="20.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="20.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="21"></a>21. If your answer to
question 20 is yes, under what
circumstances (i.e., mandatory, at the
discretion of the parties, before
and/or after decision rendered, etc.)?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="21.0" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="22"></a>22. Do you believe that
UDRP decisions should be made
available in one central place accessible to
all panelists and the public?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="22.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="22.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="22.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="23"></a>23. Do you believe the
decisions should be in the
public domain or should they be the
intellectual property of the Providers?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="23.0"
value="public">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Public</font>
<input type="radio" name="23.0"
value="private">
Private</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="23.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="24"></a>24. Should a Complainant
that loses a UDRP case be
permitted to re-file the case?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="24.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="24.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not, and if so, under what
circumstances?
<blockquote>
<textarea name="24.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="25"></a>25. Should there be any
limits on a complainant's
ability to withdraw a complaint?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="25.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="25.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not and if so, what types of
limits should be imposed?
<blockquote>
<textarea name="25.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="26"></a>26. Should the UDRP
provide for any affirmative defenses?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="26.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="26.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not and if so, what affirmative
defenses should be included
(laches,acquiescence, domain name is a
generic term, etc.)?
<blockquote>
<textarea name="26.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="27"></a>27. Should prior UDRP
decisions have any preclusive
effect in subsequent UDRP proceedings
involving the same parties and
same domain name(s)?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="27.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="27.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Please explain:</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="27.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="28"></a>28. Should prior UDRP
decisions have precedential
value for future proceedings within the
UDRP?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="28.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="28.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="28.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="29"></a>29. Do you think there
should be the ability to appeal
a decision within the UDRP?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="29.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="29.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="29.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><i>IF YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS NO,
<a href="#33">SKIP TO QUESTION
33</a>.</i></p>
<p><a name="30"></a>30. How should such an
appeal process work (i.e.,
how many panelists should be required to
preside over the appeal, should
a different provider be required, should all
appeals be heard by a single,
centralized institution, etc.) and how
should it be financed (i.e.,
who should be responsible for the costs, how
should the costs be determined,
etc.)?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="30.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="31"></a>31. What level of
deference, if any, should an appellate
panel afford initial panel
determinations?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="31.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="32"></a>32. Should the right to
appeal be automatic?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="32.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="32.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If not, what restrictions should apply?
<blockquote>
<textarea name="32.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="33"></a>33. If you have been or
are a panelist or provider,
do you believe there is sufficient time to
review complaints and responses
for sufficiency?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="33.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="33.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="33.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="34"></a>34. If you have been or
are a UDRP panelist, is access
to prior UDRP decisions important to
you?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="34.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="34.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, is its current form of accessibility
adequate?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="34.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="35"></a>35. Should panelists be
disqualified from representing
parties before the UDRP?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="35.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="35.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not and if so, under what
circumstances?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="35.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="36"></a>36. Should panelists' law
firms be disqualified from
representing parties before the UDRP?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="36.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="36.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not and if so, under what
circumstances?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="36.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="37"></a>37. Do you believe the
issue of "reverse domain name
hijacking" is adequately dealt with by the
UDRP?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="37.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="37.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="37.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="38"></a>38. If your answer to
question 37 is no, how do you
propose the UDRP should be amended to
adequately deal with reverse domain
name hijacking (RDNH), from the perspective
of both determining RDNH
liability and determining the available
remedies against a complainant
found liable of RDNH.</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="38.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="39"></a>39. Do you believe there
is a problem in the consistency
among UDRP decisions either among panelists
or across Providers (please
specify) and if so, how would you propose
amending the UDRP to ensure
consistency among decisions?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="39.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="40"></a>40. Section 4(a)(I) of the
UDRP requires a Complainant
to show that the domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to
a trademark or service mark in which the
complainant has rights. Should
this section apply only to the physical
appearance of the domain name
and trade mark/service mark?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="40.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="40.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Comments?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="40.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="41"></a>41. If your answer to
question 40 is no, should the
UDRP be amended to include a list of factors
to assist the panelists
in determining when a confusing similarity
exists?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="41.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="41.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not and if so, what factors
should be included?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="41.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="42"></a>42. Do you believe both
registration in bad faith
and use in bad faith should be required to
satisfy the bad faith requirement
of Section 4(a)?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="42.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="42.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="42.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="43"></a>43. Under what
circumstances, if any, should a pending
trademark application be sufficient proof
for the purposes of a complainant
establishing a trademark in which it has
rights as required under Section
4(a)(i)? Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="43.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="44"></a>44. Do you feel that the
fees being charged by the
providers are appropriate?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="44.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="44.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If not, why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="44.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="45"></a>45. If you feel that
current fees are not appropriate,
how do you feel they should be changed?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="45.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="46"></a>46. Do you feel that the
fees being paid to the panelists
are appropriate?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="46.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="46.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If not, how do you feel they should be
changed?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="46.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="47"></a>47. Should a respondent
get a refund on the fee for
a three person panel requested by the
respondent when the complainant
drops the complaint?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="47.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="47.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, what type (i.e., full, partial)?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="47.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="48"></a>48. Should a complainant
get a refund on the fee for
a three person panel requested by the
complainant when the respondent
defaults?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="48.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="48.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, what type (i.e., full, partial)?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="48.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="49"></a>49. Should the UDRP
provide a mandatory mediation
service or a cooling off period to allow
parties to discuss the dispute
and try to reach an amicable solution?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="49.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="49.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, what should it look like?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="49.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="50"></a>50. Should the UDRP be
expanded to cover disputes
other than abusive domain name
registrations?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio"d name="50.0"
value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="50.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, what other issues should be covered
and why?
<blockquote>
<textarea name="50.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="51"></a>51. Where a TLD has a
charter, should the UDRP be
expanded to deal with charter
violations?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="51.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="51.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="51.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="52"></a>52. Do you think that the
UDRP should be uniform across
gTLDs and ccTLDs?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="52.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="52.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="52.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="53"></a>53. If your answer to
question 52 is yes, should a
complainant be allowed to include both gTLD
and ccTLD domain names in
one complaint?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="53.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="53.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>Why or why not?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="53.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="54"></a>54. Are you aware of any
other dispute resolution
mechanisms (other than court proceedings)
for dealing with cybersquatting
that you feel show merit in some way?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="54.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="54.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, please describe.</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="54.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="55"></a>55. Have you used a domain
name dispute resolution
mechanism (other than a court proceeding)
other then ICANN's UDRP?</p>
<p>
<input type="radio" name="55.0" value="yes">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica,
san-serif">Yes</font>
<input type="radio" name="55.0" value="no">
No</p>
<p>If so, which one(s) and what did you like
and dislike about it/them?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="55.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<p><a name="56"></a>56. In what way not
already indicated above do you
feel the UDRP excels or could be
improved?</p>
<blockquote>
<textarea name="56.1" rows="4"
cols="60"></textarea>
</blockquote>
<center>
<input type="submit" value="SUBMIT FORM">
</center>
</font></font></font></TD>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2>
<center>
<p>
<hr noshade>
<p><font size="-1">Comments concerning the
layout, construction and
functionality of this site <br>
should be sent to <a
href="mailto:webmaster@icann.org">webmaster@icann.org</a>.</font></p>
<p><font size="-1">Page Updated 09-Jan-2002
</font></p>
<p><font size="-2">©2002 The Internet
Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.
</font><font size="-1"><br>
</font> </p>
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</TABLE>
</FORM>
</BODY>
</HTML>
> ATTACHMENT part 3 application/msword name=90-98 UDRP
Analysis.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 4 application/msword name=Dear Task
Force Members.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 5 application/msword
name=JAC8289..DOC
> ATTACHMENT part 6 application/msword
name=Mil2922.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 7 application/msword name=Report -
Neil Dundas.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 8 application/msword name=RESPONSES
TO UDRP QUESTIONNAIRE_v2.DOC
> ATTACHMENT part 9 application/msword name=Summary of
90-98 responses.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 10 application/msword name=UDRP
Process and related issues.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 11 application/msword name=UDRP
Review Chart Surveys (GBD).doc
> ATTACHMENT part 12 application/msword name=UDRP
Review Chart Surveys 124-131.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 13 application/msword name=UDRP
Review Chart Surveys 17-24.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 14 application/msword name=UDRP
Review Chart Surveys 25-32.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 15 application/msword name=UDRP
Survey Results.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 16 application/msword name=UDRP
Survey Tabulation.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 17 application/msword
name=udrpanalysis.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 18 application/msword name=#382394
v1 - Summary Memo UDRP Questionnaire.doc
=====
James A. Carmody, nn5o, carmody@lawyer.com
http://www.lawyers.com/jacarmodypc
Voice Mail: 713 446 4234; eFax: 815 461 5321
GO TEXANS!!
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|
