July 2018 - Gnso-rpm-documents

Updated documents, action items and notes from Documents Sub Team call earlier today
by Mary Wong July 31, 2018

July 31, 2018

Dear Sub Team members, Please find attached an updated discussion document, following from the discussion on the Sub Team call held earlier today. Staff has retained the yellow highlights that indicate updates from last week’s call, with updates from today highlighted in turquoise. Staff is currently working with Brian to develop a short slide deck for his presentation to the full Working Group tomorrow, outlining the work done and the resulting preliminary recommendations that the Sub Team is proposing be discussed by the full Working Group. Below are the action items and notes taken by staff on the call today. As usual, they are intended only as high-level notes and do not replace the full recording and transcript, which can be found (along with all the latest versions of the documents referenced by the Sub Team up to today) on the Sub Team wiki space at https://community.icann.org/x/NgdpBQ. We note, with apologies, that we did not send out the action items and notes from the call last week. We will post these to the wiki space for the meeting held last week as soon as we can. Thank you.gnso Mary, Berry, Julie & Ariel ACTION ITEMS: * Staff to update discussion document to reflect latest Sub Team deliberations and recommendations (DONE – see attached) * Brian to work with staff to prepare update/report for full Working Group call tomorrow (Wednesday), with focus on the Sub Team’s findings and recommendations (IN PROCESS) * Staff to review the cases coded by Rebecca as indicating possible language issues, and report to the Sub Team about any policy issue identified as a result (IN PROCESS) RECOMMENDATIONS: * Section J: Language - Develop guidance for Examiners to assist with their decision as to what language to use in going forward with a URS proceeding and Determination * Section L: Education & Training - Develop a multilingual basic FAQ (for both complainants and respondents) that can grow over time NOTES & DISCUSSION: 1. Section J (Language) - Two types of issues: notice to Respondent, and notice to registries/registrars - A few cases have noted that respondents may have an issue with the language (of the Examiner? Proceedings/Determination?) - refer to Rebecca's spreadsheet for the cases - Petter (as panelist) has seen cases where the response was provided in English, but not necessarily fully conversant. - RECOMMENDATION: provide some guidelines for Examiners to look at, in deciding which language to use for the Determination when the respondent's main language does not appear to be English - On FORUM report of language: Renee confirms that it is a regular report to ICANN that just lists the languages used during the reporting period. - Staff to look at the cases noted by Rebecca's research to see if any substantive issues can be identified. 2. Section K: Abuse of Process - FORUM looked at 20 cases where respondent alleged abuse of process by Complainant, but none found (overall, no cases of abuse have been found, based on the current URS provisions) - Respondents may make the allegation but while it may be noted by the Examiner, the Examiner may not specifically note that no abuse was found - See what (if any) recommendations or issues are highlighted by the other two Sub Teams - No specific recommendation from Documents Sub Team based on available data 3. Section I: Education & Training - The Providers' feedback has substantial information about this topic; some follow up being conducted by the Providers Sub Team - Look to Providers Sub Team for specific issues/recommendations - could include development of a multilingual basic FAQ (for both complainants and respondents) that can grow over time - Practitioners Sub Team may also have insights. 4. Section M: URS Providers - Again, guidance here should mostly come from Providers Sub Team and perhaps the Practitioners Sub Team 5. Section N: Alternative Processes - Added due to WG member suggestions; no specific data noted or reviewed by Documents Sub Team

1 0

FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Updated Consolidated URS topics table document
by Mary Wong July 30, 2018

July 30, 2018

Dear all, Please find attached an updated document from what was reviewed and discussed on the Documents Sub Team call this past Wednesday. As a reminder, that call saw the Sub Team discuss Sections F (Remedies), G (Appeals), H (Overlapping Process Steps), and I (Costs) of the consolidated URS topics table. What staff has attempted to do is the following: * Capture suggestions and recommendations in the last column of the document (as has been done with the earlier Sections); * Clean up superseded comments and edits from Sections A through E (based on discussions from 18 July and the recap from 25 July); * Highlight new comments and additions in yellow, to show what has changed from the 25 July version that was discussed on that call, and for ease of review. We hope the updates are useful and accurate. As noted by Brian on our last call, the Sub Team call tomorrow will focus on the remaining Sections (J through N). As such, staff has not edited or updated any of the notes or comments from the last version of the document in relation to these remaining Sections. Thanks and cheers Mary & Berry

1 0

URS "delay" cases research
by BECKHAM, Brian July 26, 2018

July 26, 2018

All, In advance of our call today, please see the attached. In sum, it is not clear why these came up in a search on the provider's website for "delay" as the term was not in any of the cases (I have re-run the search several times, and had a colleague do the same, including in different browsers). In either event, some of the cases were filed the same month as the DDN was registered, and the longest stretch was one year. None of these would not fall into what would be considered a "delay" in filing type scenario. In fact, on reflection, given that new gTLDs have launched from 2014 to the present, it is difficult to make a case for invoking the "delay" doctrine at all in URS cases so far. I suggest this is a useful data point for our consideration. Brian Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> | www.wipo.int<http://www.wipo.int/> [The image of the 2018 GII cover shows crashing waves captured within the outline of a battery cell, representing the raw power of innovation.] <http://www.wipo.int/gii/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campa…> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii<http://www.wipo.int/gii/?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campa…> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.

2 2

FOR REVIEW: Updated summary table of "de novo review" cases
by Mary Wong July 26, 2018

July 26, 2018

Dear all, Staff has now updated the summary table of the 29 cases where a Final Determination was issued (see attached). As confirmed by Renee and David in previous emails, our assumption is that all 29 Final Determination cases refer to those cases where a Response was filed on or after the Default date, but within the permissible 6-month response period. Statistical summary Out of the 29 (out of 827) cases where a de novo review occurred: * The Respondent prevailed in 6 cases (meaning the Complainant prevailed in 23). * The Final Determination in 28 cases was rendered in English (the sole exception being one in Spanish). * 3 cases saw a Response filed on the same day as the issuance of the Default Determination (and of the 3, 1 saw the Respondent prevail). * 2 cases saw a Response filed on the date of Default (with the Complainant prevailing in both cases). * All but one case involving a Chinese registrant saw a Response filed in English (the remaining case saw a blank Response filed). In the 21 cases where a Final Determination was issued and no Appeal followed (there were Appeals in 2 out of the 23 cases where the Final Determination was in favor of the Complainant): * The Complainant prevailed on all 3 substantive grounds. In the 2 cases where an Appeal was filed following the Final Determination: * The Complainant prevailed on appeal. We have updated the Summary Table (attached) to include these statistical points, and we have also included links to all 29 cases. We hope the attachment and the statistical summary are useful, and we will now proceed to prepare a list of possible administrative improvements for the Sub Team’s consideration, based on David McAuley’s report on the call today and the staff observation from reviewing the 29 cases of de novo review. Thanks and cheers Mary & Berry From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 00:44 To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf) This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [The image of the 2018 GII cover shows crashing waves captured within the outline of a battery cell, representing the raw power of innovation.][wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm…> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm…> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat for RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call held on Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 17:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon July 25, 2018

July 25, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat transcript attached to this email and the mp3 and AC Recording below for the RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call held Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/jgNdBQ Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-documents-25jul18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8ed3sxios9/<https://participate.icann.org/p8ed3sxios9/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=fcbccaca5332d3ed…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/zRW8B [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases
by Mary Wong July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf) This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domain…> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [The image of the 2018 GII cover shows crashing waves captured within the outline of a battery cell, representing the raw power of innovation.][wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm…> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm…> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.

6 13

Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Agenda - URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 25 July 2018, 17:00 UTC
by mail＠berrycobb.com July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

Hi All, Please find the proposed agenda for the Documents Sub-team Meeting on 25 July 2018 @ 17:00 UTC: 1. Agenda Bash, SOI updates 2. After action review of Sections A-E 3. Substantive deliberations on key topics of the URS (Sections F+) a. Standard of Proof and Defenses (continue from last week) b. Remedies c. Appeal d. Overlapping Process e. Costs f. Language g. Abuse of Process h. Education and Training i. URS Providers j. Data collection & analysis: i. attached, Consolidated URS Discussion Document - updated 23 July 2018v1.docx ii. attached, Staff compilation report - updated URS data_v1.1 - 9 July 2018.docx 1. Claims Denied – refer to email sent by Mary: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/2018-July/000059.html iii. attached, Responses & Notes - URS Provider Questions (15 June 2018) - Responses.pdf iv. attached, URS Practitioners Survey Summary Results 12 June 2018.pdf 4. Next steps - report to the full WG, coordinate with the other Sub Teams as necessary 5. AoB On item #3 – The sub team will review through in detail each section. Each inventoried data source will be presented and then we’ll open up deliberation for the sub team to identify issues they see with the URS based on the data and/or provide a preliminary conclusion of what could be changed to address the issue. Staff will document each of these identified for a summary output document. The sub team is encouraged to review through the remaining sections prior to the call formulating your opinions/questions to help inform the deliberations. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb

1 0

Recording, Attendance, & AC Chat for RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call held Wednesday, 18 July 2018
by Julie Bisland July 18, 2018

July 18, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat transcript attached to this email and the mp3 and AC Recording below for the RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call held Wednesday, 18 July 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/jYxHBQ Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-documents-18jul18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9sceaqfaq8/<https://participate.icann.org/p9sceaqfaq8/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=608c00bf14496c35…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/zRW8B Kind Regards, Julie

1 0

Action Items & Notes from the URS Documents Sub Team call today
by Mary Wong July 18, 2018

July 18, 2018

Dear all, Here is what staff captured as action items and notes from the URS Documents Sub Team call that was held today, 18 July 2018. As always, the notes are intended only as high-level summary points for reference and do not replace the full record of the call, for which the recording and transcript will be posted to the Sub Team’s wiki page. Action Items: 1. Brian to work with staff to contact registry operators whose gTLDs saw the most URS complaints for feedback about their qualitative experiences with the notice requirements (based on list of 25 gTLDs with the most URS complaints as of December 2017) 2. Brian to coordinate with staff regarding alignment with the other Sub Teams and reporting back to the full WG 3. Staff to clean up topics table based on today's discussion and provide list of issues/topics/points for Sub Team consideration and (as appropriate) further consideration 4. Staff to provide case numbers for Sub Team members to review more deeply (for the Claims Denied cases) - Zak M. and David M. volunteered 5. Staff to circle back with David M. on the de novo review cases 6. Staff to find out if there is decoding software available that can be used to read the coded portion of a SMD file (or if the only way is to obtain the private key from the TMCH) 7. Staff to complete action items on additional background information as noted in Column 4 of the URS Consolidated Document Notes: * Note on Action Item from 11 July: The Docs Sub Team believes it has adequately identified the available data sources for all the topics and questions raised. * Objective of this call: based on review of data we have, determine what (if any) potential recommendations and other observations we will report for the full WG to consider. Important to remember that full discussion and development of policy recommendations must happen at the WG level. * Question: On responses from Providers' & Practitioners' survey results - do we just catalogue them (as received) or should we do more to facilitate coordination across the Sub Teams and for discussion by the full WG? * Approach: walk through each section (especially Column 4 and where there is reference to the Provider or Practitioner survey responses), to meet objective of the call as stated (e.g. ask if the Sub Team sees any issues or possible discussion proposals based on the survey responses) Discussion: A. THE COMPLAINT: * Standing re: types of marks - this raises a fundamental question as to whether the nature of the mark (since trademark rights are required for standing) is something that is within scope for URS review. SUB TEAM RECOMMENDATION - highlight that question has been raised as to whether the standing requirement for URS should be changed in view of available data about types of marks. * Proof of use via SMD files - practitioners' survey results seem to indicate no problems have been caused (SMD files are adequate), but a few respondents and WG members have raised questions about this. QUESTION: Is there decoding software that can "open" the coded (non-human readable) portions of the SMD file? Is it only readable with the private key obtainable only from the TMCH? * Time frames - this has implications on the filing as well as receiving party. Responses were mostly filed within the 6-months timeframe (most within the initial 14 days). QUESTION: Is the problem not so much length of each time frame per se, but the possible overlapping/duplicative mechanisms for review and appeal? * Word limits - more practitioners agreed that these are adequate, but a number also disagreed. B. THE NOTICE: * Providers Sub Team has been discussing the differences in practice amongst the various providers. No need to duplicate that effort - but Docs Sub Team notes the need to have a coordinated discussion of any notice issues at the WG level. * From Practitioners survey - Most practitioners who responded noted no issues with notice, with one comment on privacy/proxy services noting that FORUM was able to assist. Many of the practitioners represented complainants. * Locking of domain within 24 hours - providers have indicated no serious difficulties, including with communicating with registry operators, though there are occasional inconsistencies and problems (for specific reasons documented in the provider survey responses). No issues were raised from the practitioners. C. THE RESPONSE: * Refer to staff compilation summary and data tables for the data on how many responses were filed, in which time frame, and their final determination. QUESTION: of the 4% (between 23-27%) of the 827 cases where a response was filed after the 14-day period but within 6 months, is it possible to see exactly when they were filed? Reply: This will require a further look into the data as we don't currently have the actual cases extracted. SUB TEAM RECOMMENDATION: No further research required at the moment, given the data staff has already compiled. * Cases involving 15 or more domains: not many. SUB TEAM RECOMMENDATION: The current data does not allow for any sound policy conclusion. D. STANDARD OF PROOF * Is URS being used for its purpose: Practitioners survey results - most either agreed or strongly agreed. * Meeting "clear and convincing" standard - practitioners split on whether guidance should be provided to examiners on how to determine if this has been met. Over half the practitioners felt the standard is appropriate (and felt it was adequate as is), but a few thought it was too high (and should be lowered). SUB TEAM RECOMMENDATION: Some rudimentary guidance as to what constitutes "clear and convincing" (in view of differing laws around the world) may be useful. Based on the data reviewed, the Sub Team does not believe that changing the standard is necessary. * Analysis of the 59 Claims Denied cases: work in progress; staff focus continues to be on trying to see if grounds/defenses other than those listed in URS sections 5.7 and 5.8 were the reason.

1 0

Agenda - URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 18 July 2018, 17:00 UTC
by mail＠berrycobb.com July 18, 2018

July 18, 2018

Hi All, Please find the proposed agenda for the Documents Sub-team Meeting on 18 July 2018 @ 17:00 UTC: 1. Agenda Bash, SOI updates 2. Substantive deliberations on key topics of the URS a. The Complaint b. The Notice c. The Response d. Standard of Proof and Defenses (if time allows) e. Data collection & analysis: i. attached, Consolidated URS Discussion Document - updated 16 July 2018v2.docx ii. attached, Staff compilation report - updated URS data_v1.1 - 9 July 2018.docx iii. attached, Responses & Notes - URS Provider Questions (15 June 2018) - Responses.pdf iv. attached, URS Practitioners Survey Summary Results 12 June 2018.pdf 3. AOB On item #2 – The sub team will review through in detail each section, starting with The Complaint on our consolidated table and data inventory. Each inventoried data source will be presented and then we’ll open up deliberation for the sub team to identify issues they see with the URS based on the data and/or provide a preliminary conclusion of what could be changed to address the issue. Staff will document each of these identified for a summary output document. The sub team is encouraged to review through the first three sections prior to the call formulating your opinions/questions to help inform the deliberations. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb

3 2