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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Correct.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 07:10 AM
To: gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call

Understood. But what those issues are should not be based on provider
viewpoints alone, correct?


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call
> From: "Neuman, Jeff"
> Date: Tue, April 05, 2011 6:06 am
> To: "'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'" ,
> "'David.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
> Cc: "'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" ,
> "'Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx'" ,
> "'wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx'"
>
>
> Tim,
>
> All of the sources of data that you mention (and that were previously 
> mentioned by Wendy) were discussed during the call. The questionnaire is 
> supposed to be designed to elicit what the issues are (not the outcomes) with 
> the udrp and if you can think of other people to send it to then I agree it 
> should be sent to them. This is what the tone of the call was yesterday.
>
> We just need to be careful that this is treated more like a brainstorming 
> session of the issues and not the policy work itself. This is a tool to help 
> Margie write the issues report and should not be viewed as anything more (I 
> hope).
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 06:58 AM
> To: David.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx ; margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx ; wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call
>
>
> I think it should be made available in some form in a general way for
> other interested parties. It is easy to identify providers to "send" to
> as they are a small group. But getting viewpoints from both complainants
> and responders may not be as easy, but just as important, and may
> require a different form of questionaire.
>
> Another thought is that the WIPO UDRP 2.0 document lays out a few very
> concise issues that right now are not decided concistently and have
> precedent going in multiple directions. Although they are cybersquatting
> issues in a direct sense, they are related and may be good issues to see
> if policy needs to be formed around them to steer the UDRP back to a
> more predictable process.
>
>
> Tim
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call
> > From: "Taylor, David"
> > Date: Tue, April 05, 2011 5:48 am
> > To: ,
> > Cc: ,
> >
> >
> > Tim, Wendy
> >
> > Thanks for your input. I think all viewpoints are welcomed. On our call of 
> > yesterday we did not exclude sending the questionnaire to others, simply 
> > thought that the current UDRP providers likely to be one of the best 
> > sources of data in the first instance. Do let Margie know of others we 
> > could send it to.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > David Taylor
> > Partner
> > Hogan Lovells International LLP
> > 6 Avenue Kl�©ber, 75116 Paris, France
> > Tel:+33 (0) 1 53 67 47 47
> > Fax:+33 (0) 1 53 67 47 48
> > Email:drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > www.hoganlovells.com
> > Â
> >
> >
> > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:26 PM
> > To: wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx ; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call
> > Â
> >
> > 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
> > > Date: Mon, April 04, 2011 4:26 pm
> > > To: Margie Milam
> > > Cc: "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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in 
> > England and Wales with registered number OC353350.
> > Hogan Lovells refers to the international legal practice comprising Hogan
> >
> >
> >
> > Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide 
> > Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses. Hogan Lovells 
> > International LLP is a limited
> >
> >
> >
> > liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered 
> > number OC323639. Registered office and principal place of business: 
> > Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct,
> >
> >
> >
> > London EC1A 2FG. Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership 
> > registered in the District of Columbia.
> >
> > The word "partner" is used to refer to a member of Hogan Lovells 
> > International LLP or a partner of Hogan Lovells US LLP, or an employee or 
> > consultant with equivalent
> >
> >
> >
> > standing and qualifications, and to a partner, member, employee or 
> > consultant in any of their affiliated businesses who has equivalent 
> > standing. A list of the members of
> >
> >
> >
> > Hogan Lovells International LLP and of the non-members who are designated 
> > as partners, and of their respective professional qualifications, is open 
> > to inspection at the above
> >
> >
> >
> > address. Further important information about Hogan Lovells can be found on 
> > www.hoganlovells.com.
> >
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except 
> > where the email is marked "officiel", it may also be privileged. If 
> > received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but 
> > notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any 
> > attachments) from your system.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>