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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Mary and Kristina.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] Action Items From Today's Call
> From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, April 05, 2011 3:48 pm
> To: "Kristina Rosette" <krosette@xxxxxxx>,        "'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'"
> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,        "gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx"
> <gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> "Rosette, Kristina" 
> 
> To:
> "'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'" , "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"  
> Sender: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:07:45 -0400
> To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: 'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'; '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  
> 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 KlÃ��Ã� ©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
> > > � 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>