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

[Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I agree that having balanced and representative viewpoints is important.
>From the call yesterday, I'd stress the fact that the questionnaire is
intended to seek data and specific information along the lines of the
questions Kristina listed in her other email (e.g. number of pro se
respondents, incidences of appeal, language issues etc.) The webinar
that's planned would build on the questionnaire, to illustrate some
"real world" problems that crop up frequently. Here's where having folks
that often represent both complainants and respondents - and not just
commercial parties in either case - is key.
 
I agree also with Stephane that it's important not to appear biased or
to favor particular viewpoints or persons; I think that if the
questionnaire and webinar are structured and presented this way, with a
reminder (as Jeff noted) that this is to scope out the Issue Report and
is not the policy work, this can be largely avoided. 

Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
To:"'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx"
<gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 4/5/2011 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call
That's already accounted for in asking the providers to each identify
the attorney that most frequently represent respondents in proceedings
before them.  A few persons will be invited from that pool to speak. (I
suspect that the same person will likely be identified by multiple
providers.)
 
 



From: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:53 PM
To: gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call

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

Tim
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> 
Sender: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:07:45 -0400
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 


 
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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>