RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Wendy. It sounds like the focus is on providers only.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call
> From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 04, 2011 4:26 pm
> To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I'm sorry I had to miss the call.  Did the group consider reaching out
> through our networks to find additional viewpoints?  For example,
> academics who have studied the UDRP, and individuals who have been in
> domain name disputes but who have not been represented by attorneys.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
> 
> On 04/04/2011 05:15 PM, Margie Milam wrote:
> > Dear All,
> > 
> > Here is a brief summary of the action item's resulting from today's call:
> > 
> > 
> > *         David Taylor, John Berard, and I will work together to draft a 
> > questionnaire to send to each of the UDRP providers in the next few days, 
> > to be sent out as soon as possible.
> > 
> > *         We will schedule an initial webinar for late/April early March, 
> > for 90 minutes, organized as follows:
> > 
> > o   Each UDRP provider will be allocated five minutes to address how to 
> > make the UDPR more efficient, and to discuss/rank their top issues for 
> > improvements the UDRP (total of 20 min).
> > 
> > o   Each UDRP provider will be asked to recommend two  panelists, from 
> > which a few speakers would be selected (for a total of 20 min) to discuss 
> > their issues
> > 
> > o   Each UDRP provider will also be asked to recommend two attorneys- one 
> > that regularly represents complainants, and one that regularly represents 
> > respondents, from which a few speakers would be selected (for a total of 20 
> > min) to discuss their issues
> > 
> > o   Remainder of the webinar for audience input
> > 
> > *         The purpose of the initial webinar is to help frame the issues 
> > for the drafting of the Issue Report.  There will be additional 
> > opportunities for providers/panelists to provide information throughout 
> > this process, including, through scheduling a session in Singapore and 
> > additional webinars, and during the PDP itself should one be commenced.
> > 
> > *         It was suggested that a "Preliminary Issue Report" be published 
> > after the initial webinar, in time for the Singapore Meeting, and the 
> > opening of a public comment period that would run through and after the 
> > Singapore Meeting.   After that, a "Final Issue Report" would be presented 
> > to the Council, which would incorporate comments received during the 
> > Singapore session and the public comment period.
> > 
> > *         Regarding additional documents to review- the IRT/STI comments 
> > filed during the public comment period for references to issues related to 
> > the UDRP, and WIPO's recently published annual report on its UDRP cases.
> > 
> > Finally, Gisella will send around a doodle for next week Tues/Wed, for a 
> > follow-up call.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Margie
> > ______
> > 
> > Margie Milam
> > Senior Policy Counselor
> > ICANN
> > ______
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613
> Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/