RE: UDRP interim committee

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

Milton, the raw data could be helpful. We can take a look at it when it is
availble and see if and how it might fit in with our review. I As we all
know, statistics can be interpreted in more than one way, and we need to
ensure no biases are injecting in the process.  Just look at the economy and
the way investors can read the numbers in conflicting ways.

I was suggesting the questionnaire as a means for crystallizing what issues
need to be addressed, and not drawing conclusions from it.  The WGS assigned
to the issues would based on a bottoms up process come up with a conclusion
(and hopefully a consenus-based one).  I too wanted the population to be
defined and thus wanted to limit it to those peoople that have actually used
the UDRP, but also those that affirmnatively decided not to for a particular
reason (the reasons very well may be some of the issues raised in the
NCDNH's respolutions). I did not want this to be an esoteric discussion but
one based on real experiences with the UDRP.  

We may also want to look at the results of the WIPO study released in April.

Miriam, Ken, what are your thoughts.

PS, Milton I have emailed Elisabeth to ask whether we can be set up as an
email group so our emails can be archived.

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 2:46 PM
To: kstubbs@corenic.org; rogerc@netsol.com; orobles@nic.mx;
mueller@syracuse.edu; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com
Subject: Re: UDRP interim committee


Caroline:

A few reactions to your suggestions. 

The Markle Foundation has provided 
our institution (Syracuse University) and the University of Massachusetts
with funding to track the UDRP. This is an objective, primarily statistical
database. That is, we will be able to generate detailed reports about number
and types of disputes, dates of registration, country of origin
of disputants, market share of RSPs, results broken down in various
ways, etc.., etc. We are committed to entering the data for the first 
4,000 UDRP cases. We have a great deal of data already entered, 
but will not be completely finished by Stockholm. But we should know 
quite a bit about the first 2,500 to 3,000 cases by then.

If this committee generates a set of questions that could be answered 
using that data, I'd be happy to generate the reports. That could be 
done in time for Stockholm.

Second, you are suggesting a form of social science (survey research)
to engage people's opinion about UDRP. That seems like a good
idea to me. Since social science is my business please consider the
following.

There are two big issues in any form of survey research. 
One is the method of sampling. The population to be sampled 
must be defined and the methods of sampling it must be 
controlled if one wants to be able to draw valid conclusions 
from the survey. 

The other is the design of the survey questionnaire. Entire books
have been written about the do's and don'ts of that. I would 
hope that if you really intend to conduct a survey that we do it
right.

Third, getting responses back will take time. 

Finally, an administrivia question. I am assuming the emails among
committee members are private. Are they however archived anywhere?
Or do i need to create another folder in my email client? 

>>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 04/30/01 02:51PM
>>>
Asyou all know, we need to come up with a terms of refernce for a UDRP
review.  I would like to get the dialog started this week so we have
something to report for the May 9th call.

I envisioned that we would come up with a questionnaire that would ask
questions of poeple involved in the process (complainants, respondents,
panelists, providers, and the public at large to the extent that they were
aware of the UDRP but did not use it for a particular reaons).  I am
hesitant about setting up a working group (at least like those in the past)
since I believe our task is to evaluate the UDRP and and who better than the
people that use it (or do not use it for a particular reason).   Also, I
view this as a fact finding mission.  So for example, if the questionanire
reveals that some people are in favor of an appeal process, we can then
submit the issue to a "working group" to get the Internet communities' views
on it and hopefully reach a consensus.  By presenting very succint issues, I
believe we can have more effective and more manageablk wgs.    If we could
get the questionnaires out and announced at Stockholm, we can set a deadline
for accumulate the info over the summer, and possibly have the issues
crystallized for Uruguay so that wgs could be set up and then have wg
reports submitted by ICANN LA.  

Well, this is just food for thought to get the ball rolling.