[tor-udrp] Re: UDRP Terms of Reference.DOC

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>]

Caroline et al,

I have read the proposed TORs and believe they read well.
Two comments:
1. Name of the group? Task force is fine as it has all NC constituencies in
it as well as experts. An alternative would be an expert group.

2. Speed of process to result in proposed UDRP changes
Once we have seen both public comment to the questionnaire, had the benefit
of experts, had NC and GA input, had the benefit of external studies, why
can the group not publish a report with a set of recommended changes to the
UDRP? And put the report recommendations up for public comment.

To do all this work and then get it repeated in a WG or WGs seems
unproductive and repetitive. WGs will be more likely to discuss principles
than the technical changes that may be proposed by the TF.

Example. The TF recommends clarity in the definition of "use". Is a WG going
to be well-placed to take this further?  Surely not. A WG can say - there
should be clarity and then a set of experts is needed to deliver that
clarity.

Clearly there needs to be good public input but lets keep the TF managing
this input and making it productive. A short time frame WG to review the
report recommendations (i.e. public comment in the form of a WG) may be the
way to do it.

As ever in this processes we need to strike the balance between talking
about doing something and making real change.

Philip