[nc-udrp] Re: Can we get to work, please?

["J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>]

Milton:

As always, thank you for your input.

J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <froomkin@law.miami.edu>; <sdonahey@tzllp.com>
Cc: <jse@adamspat.com>; <ndundas@africaip.com>; <philip.sheppard@aim.be>;
<faia@amauta.rep.net.pe>; <tcole@arb-forum.com>; <harris@cabase.org.ar>;
<joonh@chollian.net>; <jberryhill@ddhs.com>; <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>;
<nc-udrp@dnso.org>; <gdinwood@kentlaw.edu>; <carmody@lawyer.com>;
<katsh@legal.umass.edu>; <ramesh@mimos.my>; <michael@palage.com>;
<mwaldbaum@salans.com>; <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>;
<sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; <sythesis@videotron.ca>;
<erik.wilbers@wipo.int>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:34 PM
Subject: Can we get to work, please?


>>> "M. Scott Donahey" <sdonahey@tzllp.com> 12/05/02 12:53PM >>>
>If Michael wishes to do the executive summary of his article, I
>would be happy to prepare such a summary for the article
>prepared by Professors Helfer and Dinwoodie.  Please advise.

Folks, I'm sorry, I have to intervene here. I cannot believe
what I am reading. We are in danger of getting seriously
diverted again.

This business of "summarizing" articles is just
a colossal waste of time. All it does is divert time and
attention from the discussions, difficult bargains and policy
tradeoffs that are going to have to be made somewhere,
sometime - hopefully soon.

I see that Philip Sheppard has generously offered to
summarize my research (the Nov. 2000 "Rough Justice"
report). With all due respect to Philip, may I point out
that the report already contains an executive summary?
Moreover, the report has been discussed and debated
for two years, and I suspect that everyone on this
task force has formed an opinion about it. And anyone
who hasn't ought to go and read it for themselves,
or (as I suspect will happen anyway) rely on the opinion
and second-hand reports of people they respect.

The same is probably true of all the other articles.
Michael Froomkin is on the task force - its absurd to
have him summarizing his own opinions about how the
UDRP should be changed. Michael should express his
own opinions directly about how the UDRP should be
changed. In the process of doing that, he can cite
any research, articles, etc. he feels are relevant.

The same can be said of the IPCC representatives, who
can cite the INTA responses and report all they like,
or whatever other research they think supports
their position. Let's have an honest dialogue about what
we think needs to be done, listen to each other, and
try to come to an agreement.

The minor business of assembling links to the
relevant literature can be executed in one day.
The people who care to inform themselves will avail
themselves of it. Those who don't we can do nothing
about anyway.

The point, my friends, is that we have to start discussing
and proposing IDEAS about how the UDRP should be
changed. We need to do it DIRECTLY, and we need to start
doing it NOW. We do not need any more surveys or meta-
discussions about what others think of the UDRP. We
as a TF were charged with doing something about the
UDRP. We have a unique collection of some very well
informed people. To quote a deceased Alabama politican,
let's stop pussyfooting around...

The only way to get this process rolling is for someone to
develop a specific proposal or a set of proposals that
they put before the TF. Then we can start debating and
modifying those proposal(s).

Anything that distracts us from that is a waste of time.

--MM