RE: RE: [tor-udrp] First draft of ToR

["Oscar A. Robles Garay" <orobles@nic.mx>]

I agree with most of  Caroline's comments, but let me express what is my understanding here.

We should make a pre-analysis of the UDRP issue. We don't need to be deeper since the WG may change it. I mean, if the stakeholders find that they need to look deeper in some issues they should be able to do so, and viceversa (they may find some questions irrelevant --- for example 2.d, which I consider is better to wait for the WIPO2 recommendations).

Then back to our business, I guess that Caroline suggestions is correct on her suggestion of the skeleton in a previous mail, that is my understanding of the TOR group functions.

	    Saludos,

                Oscar A. Robles Garay
---------------------------------------------------------
Centro de Servicios de Informacion y Registro en Internet
   Direccion de Informatica    ITESM, Campus Monterrey
---------------------------------------------------------
   NIC-Mexico  Top Level Domain .MX  http://www.nic.mx
               Tel/Fax. +52(8)387-5346

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote:

> "the group should examine procedural and substantive issues of the UDRP."
>
> Agreed.
>
> "I think we need to ask the group to answer specific questions."
>
> my thinking was that the questionnaire/survey would produce those specific
> issues (both substance and procedure) that then need to be further addressed
> by wgs.    I thought that based on the last nc call, we should solicit other
> relevant people to be involved in creating the questionnaire (ie, panelists,
> providers etc) that are not part of the current interim committee.
>
> Can others please contribute their thoughts!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 7:57 PM
> To: tor-udrp@dnso.org; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com
> Subject: Re: RE: [tor-udrp] First draft of ToR
>
>
> Caroline:
>
> Section 1 charged the group to develop a survey,
> as we agreed.
>
> Sections 2 and 3 of the proposed ToR asks the
> group to address UDRP procedures and substance. The
> NC in creating this group must provide it with
> some guidance as to what issues it is to address.
> That is what the list is. It is not a "questionnaire,"
> i.e. I am not interested in a sample of opinion,
> I am interested in the right answer to those
> questions. That is precisely the "skeleton" we
> need.
>
> It seems to me to be pretty uncontroversial to say
> that the group should examine procedural and
> substantive issues of the UDRP. Can we agree on that?
>
> If we do agree on that, the next step is to come
> to an agreement on how specific our guidance is.
> I think we need to ask the group to answer
> specific questions.
>
> If you think other issues need to be addressed,
> feel free to add them. That's what collaboration is
> all about.
>
> >>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 05/15/01 11:48 AM
> >>>
> Milton, I thought after our NC meeting that we were going to leave the
> details/substance of the questionnaire to the "task force" that would create
> the questionaire?  Several of the issues that you have asked "the group" to
> address appear to address the concerns of your constituency as set forth in
> its recent resolution.  These should be raised as the questionnaire is being
> created, along with concerns from other stakeholders.
>
> At this stage, my understanding is that we simply need to provide the
> "skeleton" from which a task force and/or wg should proceed.  In this
> regard, is everyone is in agreement that we develop some sort of Task Force
> of relevent parties to create an objective questionnaire, disseminat the
> questioannaire, have the task force review results and establish wgs based
> on them to tackle the issues developed through the questionnaire to
> hopefully come up with a consensus based position regarding same.  My idea
> of a tor is set forth below.
>
> Can others please provide their thoughts on this so we can move forward?
>
> TOR
>
> Mission Statement
> [Insert}
>
> Responsibillities
>
> A.  UDRP Review Interim Committee establishes Task Force of relevent
> stakeholders to create questionnaire.  The Task Force shall solicit an
> individual from each of the following stakeholders to particpate in the
> creation of the questionnaire: complainant, respondent, panelist from each
> provider, provider, etc.
>
> Timeframe - Task Force creation -???
> 		Creation of questioannire - ???
> 		Publication of questioannaire - ???
> 		Responses due - ??
>
> B. Task Force reviews results of questioannire and identifies issues needed
> to be addressed by working groups.
>
> Timeframe - ???
>
> C.Task Force creates appropriate wg(s) with detailed terms of reference to
> address those issues.
>
> Timeframe-???
>
> Etc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 5:22 PM
> To: tor-udrp@dnso.org
> Subject: [tor-udrp] First draft of ToR
>
>
> I've attached it as a Word document. If this causes
> trouble for anyone let me know; I'll convert it to
> ASCII and send it again.
>
>
>