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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Just to follow up on Jeff's point re: information gathering.

As I understood the point of the questionnaire for providers, it is intended 
for them to identify those issues that, as a provider, they are either uniquely 
situated - as a provider - to have information about or to be the only (or 
least burdensome) aggregate source for information.    For example, the 
providers are in a far better position to know how many of their decisions are 
appealed, how often the language of the proceedings is an issue, how often the 
parties request a stay for settlement purposes, how many individual respondents 
actually respond and do so pro se, and the like.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 7:06 AM
To: 'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'; 'David.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; 'Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx'; 'wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call

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 <David.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx 
<margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx>; wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx <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 Kléber, 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>