- Gnso-rpm-documents - lists.icann.org

Agenda - URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 13 June 2018, 17:00 UTC
by mail＠berrycobb.com June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Hi All, Please find the proposed agenda for the Documents Sub-team Meeting on 13 June 2018 @ 17:00 UTC: (0) Agenda Bash, SOI updates (1) Continue review of data collection & analysis (attached, Staff compilation report - updated URS data_20180612.pdf) on remaining items identified from Consolidated URS Discussion Document (attached, Consolidated URS Discussion Document - updated 22 March 2018.docx) a. Data on the domain disposition of URS cases – P.11-13 b. Multiple URS cases filed on the same domain – P.14-15 c. URS Case response analysis – P.16** d. Discuss URS Cases where the Respondent prevailed (two drafts extracted from Rebecca’s coding, attached, URS Case Review - ClaimDenied_v0.1.pdf) i. We may have to place this agenda item first, depending on Rebecca’s availability. ii. This item is still very much a draft of something tangible for the sub-team to deliberate on and a direct extract from the coding matrix from Rebecca’s team. iii. Staff looks for additional guidance before resource spend (2) Final Review of Consolidated URS Discussion Document (3) AOB Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 06:37 To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 13 June 17:00 UTC Thanks Julie, Do we happen to know if Rebecca will be able to join this June 13 call? I also would like to ask two things: (1) if it is possible for our subteam members to share any thoughts on this list prior to the call, and (2) if anyone could back me up to co-lead or lead the call, as I will be at the ECTA Annual Conference in Greece. Having run through the excel sheet, it seems to largely support the preliminary view of this subteam that the URS generally seemed to working as intended. It also seems that there is a small subset of cases where this is little to no justification by the examiner beyond reciting the URS elements (which is not by itself per se evidence of a failure of the system or the particular case/examiner, and which must be weighed against the URS goals of speed, cost, and the nature of the domain names at issue). All said, this supports the complimentary preliminary view of this subteam that one possible recommendation for the full WG to consider would be some sort of checklist of minimum elements that should be included in URS determinations. Brian From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 6:04 PM To: gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 13 June 17:00 UTC Dear all, Please note that per item 2b below a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes to review through data as identified by the Documents Sub Team where Rebecca's research may assist and additional data as completed by staff (to be sent early next week for the Sub Team review prior to the call). Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: 1. Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. a. Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list b. After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis 2. Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: a. Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC b. Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC c. Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. d. Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. e. Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. 3. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. 4. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): a. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results b. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results c. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie 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

URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 13 June 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Dear all, Please note that per item 2b below a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes to review through data as identified by the Documents Sub Team where Rebecca's research may assist and additional data as completed by staff (to be sent early next week for the Sub Team review prior to the call). Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

7 8

Action items from URS Documents Sub Team call today
by Mary Wong April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

Dear all, Here are the action items captured by staff from the URS Documents Sub Team call that was held today, Wednesday 11 April, 1700 UTC: SUB TEAM ACTION ITEMS: * Sub Team members to send, either to this list or directly to staff, input on the analysis of the 14 appeal cases for consolidation into a summary report to the full Working Group on 18 April (see the Summary tab on the spreadsheet for a starting point: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RP7ZpmNs8wutcfkLh0H7wD2VtR15Hg8W6uu…. To ensure timely preparation of our report, it will be greatly appreciated if your comments can be sent by COB in your time zone this Friday (13 April) or at the very latest by 1200 UTC on Monday (16 April). * Sub Team members to consider if there is a need to delve further into the 14 appeal cases, and (subject to an update from Rebecca and Alex – see below) whether to recommend proceeding with a review of the 58 cases where a respondent prevailed against a complainant. STAFF ACTION ITEMS: * Staff to check the list of questions being considered by the URS Providers Sub Team, to see if it includes questions concerning: (1) issues about adherence to the URS procedures and rules raised by parties to a case; and (2) problems with notifications to/from registry operators and registrars as well as with regard to timing for carrying out locking and resolving of domains in dispute. * Staff to touch base with Rebecca Tushnet and Alex Noonan, to find out: (1) if their research will cover the 58 “respondent prevailed” and 250 “response filed” cases; and (2) when they expect to be able to provide initial data to the Working Group. * Staff to consolidate Sub Team comments into a summary report for the Working Group call next Wednesday. Thanks and cheers Mary & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Berry Cobb <mail(a)berrycobb.com> Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 13:33 To: "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Proposed next steps for URS Documents Sub Team (RPM Working Group) Hi All, Please find attached a first-run review of the 14 URS cases that also produced an appeal. The XLS, by tab, will present the original case and appeal side by side from oldest to newest as you move left to right. Most of the data is a direct copy and paste of the cases from the provider site for convenience. However, in some cases, the content for a particular category on the form was too large, and it directs you to follow the link to the actual case for completeness. Starting on row 32 are fields where the summary of case analysis takes place. You’ll also see a quick description of the to-date disposition of the domain(s) involved. The second tab of the XLS contains a draft summary of findings. I also attached a PDF export of the XLS as an additional option to review this. However, I do recommend using Excel if you can. We’ll review through the XLS and discuss this analysis at our session on Wednesday. In the meantime, please review each case in preparation for the call to formulate your own understanding of the outcomes. I’ll never admit to perfection, so I also welcome any corrections to what is presented now or if there are suggestions for other aspects to be analyzed. Until next week. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 19:56 To: BECKHAM, Brian; gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Proposed next steps for URS Documents Sub Team (RPM Working Group) Hi Brian and everyone, Starting with your last point first, yes, that is the staff advice as well, since once you are done reviewing the 14 cases we should have a better sense from Rebecca as to where her research stands; which should in turn assist the Sub Team with deciding how to proceed with the 58 “respondent prevailed” cases and then the broader class of 250 “responses filed” cases. On the 14 appeal cases, Berry and I are working on having the spreadsheet circulated to you all within the next couple of days. What Berry has done is included the link to every case (initial determination plus appeal) for each column/tab where he has also, in most cases, pasted the most relevant excerpts from the panel’s decisions. We think that it will likely be easier for you to go to each individual link when you have the spreadsheet in front of you – other information we will have in the spreadsheet includes the disputed domains; party names; legal counsel (where applicable); panelist and appeal panel names; result of the appeal and the final post-appeal disposition of the domain. As such, we hope you don’t mind waiting for another day or so while we finish up with the spreadsheet to circulate to everyone. We will also be circulating a short bullet-point-form summary of what at this stage staff thinks the main data “takeaways” from the 14 cases may be. We hope this is a satisfactory way of proceeding, at least for the 14 appeals. Cheers Mary & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 05:35 To: "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Proposed next steps for URS Documents Sub Team (RPM Working Group) Mary, all, With regard to the question of tabulating the 14 cases, if Barry is able to do this (which I can’t imagine would take much time) then members of the subteam could focus on looking at the actual determinations. To that end, is it possible to share links (or case citations) to those 14 cases already? In terms of the other categories of cases, the 58 respondent prevailed and 250 response received, also noting that there was a significant amount of discussion/disagreement in the broader WG on the notion of reviewing all cases, perhaps we could simply start with the 14 and then assess the utility of the exercise (possibly even reporting back to the WG). Best regards, Brian From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 5:54 PM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-documents] Proposed next steps for URS Documents Sub Team (RPM Working Group) Hello Brian and everyone, I’m following up generally and in response to Brian’s question below, with apologies for the delay as staff supporting all three URS sub teams reviewed where each sub team is on its work, and we wanted also to touch base with Rebecca. It seems that while Rebecca’s research is moving along, it may be another couple of weeks before an initial data set can be shared. With that in mind, staff would like to suggest to this Sub Team that: * The Sub Team proceed to review the 14 appeals cases in the meantime. In this regard, Berry is putting together a tabular framework where data on each of these 14 cases can be inputted (e.g., dates, domain(s) at issue, parties, response grounds, outcome etc.). In fact, given that there are only 14 cases (all filed so far with FORUM), Berry will likely be able to do the inputting at the same time and have a completed document for you all to look at by the end of next week. Would you like him to proceed accordingly, or do you prefer that 1 or perhaps 2 volunteers from the Sub Team do this? * In either case, staff proposes that the data inputting work be done in the course of next week, such that a document can be circulated to the Sub Team in time for a Sub Team call on Wednesday 11 April. On that call, the Sub Team can discuss the data results with a view toward reporting back to the full Working Group (based on the work being done in the other two URS Sub Teams, staff anticipates that a full Working Group meeting can be held as early as 18 April, though we will first consult with the Working Group co-chairs to seek their views and preferences). As the other two URS Sub Teams will be finalizing and sending out questions to practitioners and the URS providers, this Sub Team will then have a little time to complete the various other case reviews in a timeframe that comports with Rebecca’s initial data analysis. In other words, following the review of the 14 appeals cases, the Sub Team may choose to proceed with the 58 cases where the respondent prevailed with Rebecca’s research filling in the rest of the 250 cases where a response was received. We hope this is helpful. Please let us know what you think, or if you have additional suggestions. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 12:40 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Consolidated URS table of data sources and questions Thanks, as ever, Mary for keeping us on track. As we seem to have only a limited set of appeals, and not to take away from Rebecca's work, I would actually rather that this subteam (also) look at those cases (including so as to form its own views on the relevant data points to be ascertained). Have those appeals cases been flagged in (Barry's) spreadsheet already? Brian ________________________________ From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] FOR REVIEW: Updated Consolidated URS table of data sources and questions Dear URS Documents Sub Team members, Please find attached for your review an updated Consolidated URS Discussion Document, in which staff has updated the table where this Sub Team’s suggested data sources and questions (for Providers and Practitioners) are detailed. The staff updates concern only those additional suggestions that were made during the ICANN61 session where John McElwaine presented the Sub Team’s recommendations to the full Working Group – it is being circulated here to make sure that you are aware of, and do not have concerns about, the new edits. Please also let us know if we omitted anything inadvertently. Please note that, for ease of review, staff has accepted all changes that were made to the document up to ICANN61. The attachment therefore just shows what edits were made based on the ICANN61 discussions – however, let us know if you prefer it to remain a mark-up from the last few versions. NEXT STEPS FOR THE URS DOCUMENTS SUB TEAM: * There will not be a Sub Team meeting next week, as the Sub Team has now completed its initial tasks. * Staff has contacted Rebecca Tushnet and her research assistant, Alex Noonan, to find out the status of their research into all the URS cases. As you will recall, this Sub Team has volunteered to take on a review of a selected number of URS cases (e.g. Appeals) – staff anticipates that this task will not begin until we have heard from Rebecca and can have a good sense of how not to duplicate her work. * Staff will update the two previous documents we had prepared – these being the list of questions to be sent to the URS Practitioners and Providers Sub Teams for forwarding on to the identified URS practitioners and the three URS providers, as part of those Sub Team’s questions. We will send these updated documents to both Sub Teams before they meet again next week. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry 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.

3 2

Additional information about the "stuartweitzman.email" case
by Mary Wong April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

Hello everyone, As mentioned on the call earlier today, the one URS appeal where yoyo.email was the respondent and prevailed (out of the six appeals where yoyo.email was the respondent) led to a UDRP filing by the same complainant against yoyo.email. If you are interested, you can see that the UDRP panelist found that the complainant succeeded – on the preponderance of the evidence (balance of probabilities) standard – on all three substantive grounds; whereas in the prior URS appeal, a majority of the appeal panel had found that the complainant could not satisfy the burden of proof (i.e. clear and convincing evidence) as regards legitimate interest and bad faith: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2014-1537. I’ll note also that the URS proceeding was referenced in a footnote in the decision, as were other UDRP cases against the same respondent. Cheers Mary From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 14:23 To: Berry Cobb Mail <mail(a)berrycobb.com>, "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Action items from URS Documents Sub Team call today Dear all, Here are the action items captured by staff from the URS Documents Sub Team call that was held today, Wednesday 11 April, 1700 UTC: SUB TEAM ACTION ITEMS: * Sub Team members to send, either to this list or directly to staff, input on the analysis of the 14 appeal cases for consolidation into a summary report to the full Working Group on 18 April (see the Summary tab on the spreadsheet for a starting point: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RP7ZpmNs8wutcfkLh0H7wD2VtR15Hg8W6uu…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>. To ensure timely preparation of our report, it will be greatly appreciated if your comments can be sent by COB in your time zone this Friday (13 April) or at the very latest by 1200 UTC on Monday (16 April). * Sub Team members to consider if there is a need to delve further into the 14 appeal cases, and (subject to an update from Rebecca and Alex – see below) whether to recommend proceeding with a review of the 58 cases where a respondent prevailed against a complainant. STAFF ACTION ITEMS: * Staff to check the list of questions being considered by the URS Providers Sub Team, to see if it includes questions concerning: (1) issues about adherence to the URS procedures and rules raised by parties to a case; and (2) problems with notifications to/from registry operators and registrars as well as with regard to timing for carrying out locking and resolving of domains in dispute. * Staff to touch base with Rebecca Tushnet and Alex Noonan, to find out: (1) if their research will cover the 58 “respondent prevailed” and 250 “response filed” cases; and (2) when they expect to be able to provide initial data to the Working Group. * Staff to consolidate Sub Team comments into a summary report for the Working Group call next Wednesday. Thanks and cheers Mary & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Berry Cobb <mail(a)berrycobb.com> Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 13:33 To: "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Proposed next steps for URS Documents Sub Team (RPM Working Group) Hi All, Please find attached a first-run review of the 14 URS cases that also produced an appeal. The XLS, by tab, will present the original case and appeal side by side from oldest to newest as you move left to right. Most of the data is a direct copy and paste of the cases from the provider site for convenience. However, in some cases, the content for a particular category on the form was too large, and it directs you to follow the link to the actual case for completeness. Starting on row 32 are fields where the summary of case analysis takes place. You’ll also see a quick description of the to-date disposition of the domain(s) involved. The second tab of the XLS contains a draft summary of findings. I also attached a PDF export of the XLS as an additional option to review this. However, I do recommend using Excel if you can. We’ll review through the XLS and discuss this analysis at our session on Wednesday. In the meantime, please review each case in preparation for the call to formulate your own understanding of the outcomes. I’ll never admit to perfection, so I also welcome any corrections to what is presented now or if there are suggestions for other aspects to be analyzed. Until next week. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 19:56 To: BECKHAM, Brian; gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Proposed next steps for URS Documents Sub Team (RPM Working Group) Hi Brian and everyone, Starting with your last point first, yes, that is the staff advice as well, since once you are done reviewing the 14 cases we should have a better sense from Rebecca as to where her research stands; which should in turn assist the Sub Team with deciding how to proceed with the 58 “respondent prevailed” cases and then the broader class of 250 “responses filed” cases. On the 14 appeal cases, Berry and I are working on having the spreadsheet circulated to you all within the next couple of days. What Berry has done is included the link to every case (initial determination plus appeal) for each column/tab where he has also, in most cases, pasted the most relevant excerpts from the panel’s decisions. We think that it will likely be easier for you to go to each individual link when you have the spreadsheet in front of you – other information we will have in the spreadsheet includes the disputed domains; party names; legal counsel (where applicable); panelist and appeal panel names; result of the appeal and the final post-appeal disposition of the domain. As such, we hope you don’t mind waiting for another day or so while we finish up with the spreadsheet to circulate to everyone. We will also be circulating a short bullet-point-form summary of what at this stage staff thinks the main data “takeaways” from the 14 cases may be. We hope this is a satisfactory way of proceeding, at least for the 14 appeals. Cheers Mary & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 05:35 To: "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Proposed next steps for URS Documents Sub Team (RPM Working Group) Mary, all, With regard to the question of tabulating the 14 cases, if Barry is able to do this (which I can’t imagine would take much time) then members of the subteam could focus on looking at the actual determinations. To that end, is it possible to share links (or case citations) to those 14 cases already? In terms of the other categories of cases, the 58 respondent prevailed and 250 response received, also noting that there was a significant amount of discussion/disagreement in the broader WG on the notion of reviewing all cases, perhaps we could simply start with the 14 and then assess the utility of the exercise (possibly even reporting back to the WG). Best regards, Brian From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 5:54 PM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-documents] Proposed next steps for URS Documents Sub Team (RPM Working Group) Hello Brian and everyone, I’m following up generally and in response to Brian’s question below, with apologies for the delay as staff supporting all three URS sub teams reviewed where each sub team is on its work, and we wanted also to touch base with Rebecca. It seems that while Rebecca’s research is moving along, it may be another couple of weeks before an initial data set can be shared. With that in mind, staff would like to suggest to this Sub Team that: * The Sub Team proceed to review the 14 appeals cases in the meantime. In this regard, Berry is putting together a tabular framework where data on each of these 14 cases can be inputted (e.g., dates, domain(s) at issue, parties, response grounds, outcome etc.). In fact, given that there are only 14 cases (all filed so far with FORUM), Berry will likely be able to do the inputting at the same time and have a completed document for you all to look at by the end of next week. Would you like him to proceed accordingly, or do you prefer that 1 or perhaps 2 volunteers from the Sub Team do this? * In either case, staff proposes that the data inputting work be done in the course of next week, such that a document can be circulated to the Sub Team in time for a Sub Team call on Wednesday 11 April. On that call, the Sub Team can discuss the data results with a view toward reporting back to the full Working Group (based on the work being done in the other two URS Sub Teams, staff anticipates that a full Working Group meeting can be held as early as 18 April, though we will first consult with the Working Group co-chairs to seek their views and preferences). As the other two URS Sub Teams will be finalizing and sending out questions to practitioners and the URS providers, this Sub Team will then have a little time to complete the various other case reviews in a timeframe that comports with Rebecca’s initial data analysis. In other words, following the review of the 14 appeals cases, the Sub Team may choose to proceed with the 58 cases where the respondent prevailed with Rebecca’s research filling in the rest of the 250 cases where a response was received. We hope this is helpful. Please let us know what you think, or if you have additional suggestions. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 12:40 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Consolidated URS table of data sources and questions Thanks, as ever, Mary for keeping us on track. As we seem to have only a limited set of appeals, and not to take away from Rebecca's work, I would actually rather that this subteam (also) look at those cases (including so as to form its own views on the relevant data points to be ascertained). Have those appeals cases been flagged in (Barry's) spreadsheet already? Brian ________________________________ From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] FOR REVIEW: Updated Consolidated URS table of data sources and questions Dear URS Documents Sub Team members, Please find attached for your review an updated Consolidated URS Discussion Document, in which staff has updated the table where this Sub Team’s suggested data sources and questions (for Providers and Practitioners) are detailed. The staff updates concern only those additional suggestions that were made during the ICANN61 session where John McElwaine presented the Sub Team’s recommendations to the full Working Group – it is being circulated here to make sure that you are aware of, and do not have concerns about, the new edits. Please also let us know if we omitted anything inadvertently. Please note that, for ease of review, staff has accepted all changes that were made to the document up to ICANN61. The attachment therefore just shows what edits were made based on the ICANN61 discussions – however, let us know if you prefer it to remain a mark-up from the last few versions. NEXT STEPS FOR THE URS DOCUMENTS SUB TEAM: * There will not be a Sub Team meeting next week, as the Sub Team has now completed its initial tasks. * Staff has contacted Rebecca Tushnet and her research assistant, Alex Noonan, to find out the status of their research into all the URS cases. As you will recall, this Sub Team has volunteered to take on a review of a selected number of URS cases (e.g. Appeals) – staff anticipates that this task will not begin until we have heard from Rebecca and can have a good sense of how not to duplicate her work. * Staff will update the two previous documents we had prepared – these being the list of questions to be sent to the URS Practitioners and Providers Sub Teams for forwarding on to the identified URS practitioners and the three URS providers, as part of those Sub Team’s questions. We will send these updated documents to both Sub Teams before they meet again next week. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry 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 1

Recording, Attendance, & WebEx Chat for RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call held Wednesday, 11 April 2018.
by Terri Agnew April 11, 2018

April 11, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and WebEx Chat transcript attached to this email and the mp3 below for the RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call held Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7ITpB Mp3: <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-documents-11apr18-en.mp3> https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-documents-11apr18-en.mp3 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/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/zRW8B Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Meeting Invite / RPM Sub Team for URS Providers / 11 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC
by Corwin, Philip April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

Sub-team members: Thanks for a very productive call yesterday. In preparation for our call of 4/11, please look over the MFSD and ADNDRC Supplemental Rules and identify any provisions that you think raise new questions or are inconsistent with the URS Rules/Procedures and forward those to the email list. Our main objective for our final sub-team call next week will be to review the questions generated by our prior calls and agree on final text before sharing them with the full WG. I'm asking staff to please circulate an updated list of those questions that includes those from yesterday's call. I'll be reviewing that with an aye toward tightening and clarification, but other sub-team members should feel free to do so as well. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 11:19 AM To: ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers] Meeting Invite / RPM Sub Team for URS Providers / 11 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC Dear all, The call for the RPM Sub Team for URS Providers: To develop and review questions for the URS providers will take place on Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 19:00 Paris CEST, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Thursday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 03:00 Melbourne AEST Please check on the link below to make sure you have the right meeting time. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y8u44mgf For meeting documents and agenda, see agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/gYH3B ***Due to other simultaneous calls that will be using WebEx teleconference room, this meeting will be audio only*** If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. With kind regards, Julie **Audio phone numbers/passcode below** Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: PROVIDERS For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL RIO DE JANEIRO: 55-21-40421490 0800-7610651 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

1 0

Proposed next steps for URS Documents Sub Team (RPM Working Group)
by Mary Wong April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

Hello Brian and everyone, I’m following up generally and in response to Brian’s question below, with apologies for the delay as staff supporting all three URS sub teams reviewed where each sub team is on its work, and we wanted also to touch base with Rebecca. It seems that while Rebecca’s research is moving along, it may be another couple of weeks before an initial data set can be shared. With that in mind, staff would like to suggest to this Sub Team that: * The Sub Team proceed to review the 14 appeals cases in the meantime. In this regard, Berry is putting together a tabular framework where data on each of these 14 cases can be inputted (e.g., dates, domain(s) at issue, parties, response grounds, outcome etc.). In fact, given that there are only 14 cases (all filed so far with FORUM), Berry will likely be able to do the inputting at the same time and have a completed document for you all to look at by the end of next week. Would you like him to proceed accordingly, or do you prefer that 1 or perhaps 2 volunteers from the Sub Team do this? * In either case, staff proposes that the data inputting work be done in the course of next week, such that a document can be circulated to the Sub Team in time for a Sub Team call on Wednesday 11 April. On that call, the Sub Team can discuss the data results with a view toward reporting back to the full Working Group (based on the work being done in the other two URS Sub Teams, staff anticipates that a full Working Group meeting can be held as early as 18 April, though we will first consult with the Working Group co-chairs to seek their views and preferences). As the other two URS Sub Teams will be finalizing and sending out questions to practitioners and the URS providers, this Sub Team will then have a little time to complete the various other case reviews in a timeframe that comports with Rebecca’s initial data analysis. In other words, following the review of the 14 appeals cases, the Sub Team may choose to proceed with the 58 cases where the respondent prevailed with Rebecca’s research filling in the rest of the 250 cases where a response was received. We hope this is helpful. Please let us know what you think, or if you have additional suggestions. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 12:40 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Consolidated URS table of data sources and questions Thanks, as ever, Mary for keeping us on track. As we seem to have only a limited set of appeals, and not to take away from Rebecca's work, I would actually rather that this subteam (also) look at those cases (including so as to form its own views on the relevant data points to be ascertained). Have those appeals cases been flagged in (Barry's) spreadsheet already? Brian ________________________________ From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] FOR REVIEW: Updated Consolidated URS table of data sources and questions Dear URS Documents Sub Team members, Please find attached for your review an updated Consolidated URS Discussion Document, in which staff has updated the table where this Sub Team’s suggested data sources and questions (for Providers and Practitioners) are detailed. The staff updates concern only those additional suggestions that were made during the ICANN61 session where John McElwaine presented the Sub Team’s recommendations to the full Working Group – it is being circulated here to make sure that you are aware of, and do not have concerns about, the new edits. Please also let us know if we omitted anything inadvertently. Please note that, for ease of review, staff has accepted all changes that were made to the document up to ICANN61. The attachment therefore just shows what edits were made based on the ICANN61 discussions – however, let us know if you prefer it to remain a mark-up from the last few versions. NEXT STEPS FOR THE URS DOCUMENTS SUB TEAM: * There will not be a Sub Team meeting next week, as the Sub Team has now completed its initial tasks. * Staff has contacted Rebecca Tushnet and her research assistant, Alex Noonan, to find out the status of their research into all the URS cases. As you will recall, this Sub Team has volunteered to take on a review of a selected number of URS cases (e.g. Appeals) – staff anticipates that this task will not begin until we have heard from Rebecca and can have a good sense of how not to duplicate her work. * Staff will update the two previous documents we had prepared – these being the list of questions to be sent to the URS Practitioners and Providers Sub Teams for forwarding on to the identified URS practitioners and the three URS providers, as part of those Sub Team’s questions. We will send these updated documents to both Sub Teams before they meet again next week. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry 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.

5 7

FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: List of questions for URS Practitioners suggested by URS Documents Sub Team
by Mary Wong March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Dear URS Practitioners Sub Team, Please find attached a list of questions from the URS Documents Sub Team, to be integrated into and sent with your final set of questions to the URS practitioners you’ve identified. Please let us know if any additional clarifying information or context is needed. Thank you. Cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 14:13 To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER/TIME CHANGE: Actions/Notes/Agenda: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Wednesday, 28 March 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, Please see attached and on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/6gC8B the notes and transcript from the presentation from the Practitioners Sub Team on Sunday, 11 March at ICANN61. Please also see the following action items: Action Items: Finalize the questions and list of practitioners. Specifically: * Edit the questions to be more concise. Use radio buttons, etc. Use an online survey. * Think about a light version of the survey – such as the 10 most important questions. Based on last week’s discussion the action for the Sub Team is to revise the draft questions and finalize the list of practitioners. Thus, there is a need for at least one more meeting of the Sub Team, which is scheduled for the usual time of 17:00 UTC/13:00 EDT/10:00 PDT (NOTE TIME CHANGE FROM 18:00 UTC) on Wednesday, 28 March. Please see the draft agenda with links to the document for the meeting below. NOTE: Adobe Connect will not be available for the call. We will use PGI for the teleconference and we’ll ask Sub Team members to reference the attached documents, which also will be on the wiki agenda at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Meetings+RPM+WG+Sub+Team+f…. Draft Agenda: 1. Review agenda; 2. Discussion on the questions for practitioners – See the Google Doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1czGq3Y5Z1bVx1ys_MnfLkFE1S-_Dwc3kRzfrTpr… 3. Discussion of the list of practitioners and outreach proposals – See the Google Spreadsheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oLCilkHRdNEp8H732S6z7KOLRY7xbW991q… 4. Next steps and timing of further meetings. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: List of URS Provider questions from URS Documents Sub Team
by Mary Wong March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Dear URS Providers Sub Team, Please find attached a Word document that lists all the suggested questions from the URS Documents Sub Team for sending to the three URS Providers, following integration into the list that your Sub Team is currently compiling. Please let staff know if there are any clarifying questions about the suggestions that you would like further information or context on. A note for the URS Documents Sub Team – staff has gone over the recording and transcript from the ICANN61 URS Providers’ presentation session, and as a result have inserted several questions regarding the continuing relevance and need for some of the original suggestions. Please review and let us know if you wish to delete or amend those questions. Thank you to both Sub Teams! Cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Updated Consolidated URS table of data sources and questions
by Mary Wong March 24, 2018

March 24, 2018

Dear URS Documents Sub Team members, Please find attached for your review an updated Consolidated URS Discussion Document, in which staff has updated the table where this Sub Team’s suggested data sources and questions (for Providers and Practitioners) are detailed. The staff updates concern only those additional suggestions that were made during the ICANN61 session where John McElwaine presented the Sub Team’s recommendations to the full Working Group – it is being circulated here to make sure that you are aware of, and do not have concerns about, the new edits. Please also let us know if we omitted anything inadvertently. Please note that, for ease of review, staff has accepted all changes that were made to the document up to ICANN61. The attachment therefore just shows what edits were made based on the ICANN61 discussions – however, let us know if you prefer it to remain a mark-up from the last few versions. NEXT STEPS FOR THE URS DOCUMENTS SUB TEAM: * There will not be a Sub Team meeting next week, as the Sub Team has now completed its initial tasks. * Staff has contacted Rebecca Tushnet and her research assistant, Alex Noonan, to find out the status of their research into all the URS cases. As you will recall, this Sub Team has volunteered to take on a review of a selected number of URS cases (e.g. Appeals) – staff anticipates that this task will not begin until we have heard from Rebecca and can have a good sense of how not to duplicate her work. * Staff will update the two previous documents we had prepared – these being the list of questions to be sent to the URS Practitioners and Providers Sub Teams for forwarding on to the identified URS practitioners and the three URS providers, as part of those Sub Team’s questions. We will send these updated documents to both Sub Teams before they meet again next week. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

2 1