<<<
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: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:04:39 -0600
- Cc: DNSO SECRETARIAT <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>
- Sender: owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org
J.
Scott, I would be happy to work on the survey responses since I am already
familiar with the DNSO ones.
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)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|