RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] RE: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the UDRP

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

super!

________________________________
From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 4:02 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; 'Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx'; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Jeff Neuman
Subject: RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] RE: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the 
UDRP

Hi-  I just heard from John Berryhill that he would like to participate, so 
we'll now have the respondent viewpoint addressed, assuming you all agree.

Margie

From: Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:26 AM
To: 'Rosette, Kristina'; 'Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx'; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Jeff Neuman
Subject: RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] RE: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the 
UDRP

Kristina,
I reached out to all of the Webinar presenters and asked that they reply by COB 
yesterday.   I did not hear a response from either John or Ari.

Margie

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:24 AM
To: 'Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx'; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; Margie 
Milam; owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Jeff Neuman
Subject: RE: [gnso-udrp-dt] RE: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the 
UDRP

No preference on moderator - although some in the GNSO/ICANN Community would 
perceive you to be from the free-speech-at-all-costs community :-)

Margie - did you reach out to John and Ari about participating?  What did they 
say?

If Margie has reached out to them and they can't participate, I'm at a loss as 
to who else we could invite who can speak knowledgeably and with experience 
from the Respondent point of view.

K

________________________________
From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 1:21 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; Margie Milam; 
owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Jeff Neuman
Subject: Re: [gnso-udrp-dt] RE: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the 
UDRP
Thanks for suggesting me, Tim - if the rest of the team thinks it may be better 
to have me (academic, GNSO Council) moderate instead of Jonathan (who may be 
perceived by some in the GNSO/ICANN community to be from the TM/rights-holder 
community), I'd be happy to do so.

(but I won't take it personally if folks prefer to go with Jonathan :)

As for Susan Kawaguchi, since David Bernstein will not be in Singapore, would 
we want to consider her as a panelist? Or would that stir up the "we need more 
broadly representative Registrants" hornet's nest?

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<mailto: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:

<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>

To:

"Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
<owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Neuman, 
Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"'krosette@xxxxxxx'" <krosette@xxxxxxx<mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx>>, 
"'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" 
<gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>

Date:

6/8/2011 10:29 AM

Subject:

Re: [gnso-udrp-dt] RE: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the UDRP

Perhaps Mary would be willing to moderate?
________________________________
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:20:52 -0700
To: Neuman, Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'krosette@xxxxxxx'<krosette@xxxxxxx>; 
'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'<gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-udrp-dt] RE: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the UDRP

Hi-  I thought it would be better if I am not moderator for the same reason, so 
we should think about who might be  a good moderator for this session.

On a separate note,  David Bernstein decided not to come to Singapore after all.

Margie

From: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 5:32 PM
To: 'krosette@xxxxxxx'; 'gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [gnso-udrp-dt] Re: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the UDRP

Thanks.

FyI - I was kidding about me being the moderator thing. On the other hand, it 
may be better to have someone other than the author of the report serve as the 
moderator so that Margie could answer questions related to the Staff paper.



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



From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 06:53 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the UDRP

We had planned for the panel portion to be less than 1/2 of the allotted time 
(according to my notes) and I would be A-OK with limiting the panelists to 
reacting to the Staff recommendations, namely:  (1) whether they agree with or 
have other suggested approaches for dealing with a review of the UDRP; (2)  
whether  they have additions to the list of issues described in Annex 2; (3)  
whether they would recharacterize any of the issues as "policy" or "process" 
issues.  Provided we stick to that limitation, I think it's valuable to get the 
input from these folks who were considered to have meaningful contributions 
before.

Given the location and time difference issue, we'll need to include questions 
posted ahead by those who can't attend and can't participate remotely in real 
time.

If the persons who made those comments at the private registrar event on the 
UDRP want to rise them in the session, they will certainly be able to do so.

As for moderator, I prefer that we stick with Margie.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:09 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Margie Milam; gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-udrp-dt] RE: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the UDRP
I also think that we should not necessarily have a panel approach to the 
presentation.  I believe we should have the staff do a short presentation on 
the preliminary issues report and throw out questions to those in attendance.  
For example, I heard some great views by people last week at a private 
registrar event on the UDRP, none of which were reflected by the last panel or 
in the staff paper.  For example, some of them were concerned that the 
registrars who liberally interpret the UDRP would not follow any type of 
voluntary best practices and would only benefit from consensus policies and 
strict enforcement of those policies.  That can only be done through a PDP.

On the other hand, if you do have a panel, I would love to moderate and ask the 
tough questions ;)

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Margie Milam; gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-udrp-dt] RE: Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the UDRP

Just a question and it may be too late to ask, but why are we asking some of 
the same exact people to present that presented in the webinar?    It seems to 
me that hearing different perspectives may be helpful particularly in light of 
the recommendations of the staff report.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 5:34 PM
To: gnso-udrp-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-udrp-dt] Update on the Singapore Meeting Session on the UDRP

Dear All,
I just want to provide you with the feedback I received regarding the UDRP 
Session.   As discussed, I reached out to the Webinar panelists to see if they 
have an interest in participating in the Session.  The following have expressed 
an interest:

NAF- Kristine Dorrain
WIPO- David Turner Roche
CAC- Petr Hostas
Academic- Konstantinos Komaitis
Panelists-  David Bernstein and Neil Brown
Registrars-  Statton Hammock

Also, separately Susan Kawaguchi of Facebook expressed an interest in 
participating as a panelist.

I recommend that all of them participate, as this would be a good cross-section 
of perspectives.   I need let them know ASAP, so please respond by COB tomorrow 
if you object to this approach.

Thanks,
Margie