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

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Identifying attorneys that represent respondents is doable and their take on 
similar questions would also be informative.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:07:45 
To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; Neuman, 
Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'<gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call

It would be easy - but very time consuming - to identify individual 
respondents.  You'd have to review the captions of all decisions; in most 
cases, it will be clear from the face of the caption whether the respondent is 
an individual or not.

Because contact details for the parties aren't included in the UDRP, you'd have 
to then obtain the contact details for individual respondents - either from the 
provider or through an independent Internet search.

K

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:16 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'; 'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call

How hard would it be to identify individuals (I guess they would generally be 
respondents in a UDRP case, right?) involved in UDRP disputes?

While clear that if the answer is "very hard", then we should not unreasonably 
expect the people working on this to contact them, their input would be 
extremely useful to this process...

We must be careful not to appear biased towards the "side that always wins" 
UDRP cases (as the community tends to see it) in this preliminary work which 
might lead to one of the GNSO's most high-profile PDPs, and one which might 
have a strong impact on registrants and domain name users.

Stéphane



Le 5 avr. 2011 à 13:12, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

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



From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 07:10 AM
To: gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
<gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>'" ,
> "'David.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'David.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'"
> Cc: "'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>'" ,
> "'Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>'" ,
> "'wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'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<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 06:58 AM
> To: David.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:David.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx> ; 
> margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx> ; 
> wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<http://www.hoganlovells.com>
> > Â
> >
> >
> > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:26 PM
> > To: wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx> ; 
> > Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>