Dear URS Documents Sub Team members, Following up on Julie’s note on behalf of the RPM Working Group co-chairs (below) and on behalf of Brian Beckham, please find attached a slightly revised URS Super Consolidated Topics Table. We have highlighted proposed revisions to the URS Documents Sub Team proposals as shown in redline in the document – for the most part, these are very minor changes that are being suggested to ensure greater clarity, with one exception as described below. Please provide any feedback you may have on the proposed revisions at your earliest convenience and, if possible (as requested by the co-chairs) by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 29 August. Although it does not seem necessary to have a call given the nature of the revisions, please let us know if you disagree – note that in order for the changes to be sent to the full WG before next Wednesday and in view of the long holiday weekend coming up in the United States, any Sub Team call will likely need to be scheduled for this Friday. For your convenience, here are all the proposed revisions, shown in redline in the URS Super Consolidated Topics document (attached): * Page 3: minor clarification, no substantive change * Page 11: minor clarification, no substantive change * Page 13: minor clarification, no substantive change * Page 15, point #2: minor grammatical fix, no substantive change * Page 15, point #3: substantive update – staff has completed the review of all 58 (not 59) cases where a Respondent prevailed (of which Responses were filed in 27 cases, meaning the Respondent prevailed without filing a response in 31 cases). Summary of findings: * In most cases, a Complainant failed to prove no legitimate interest and bad faith (2nd & 3rd elements); in some cases, a Complainant failed to prove bad faith (3rd element); in a handful of cases, a Complainant failed either to prove a trademark right (1st element) or all 3 elements. * Examiners seem to be following the “clear and convincing standard”; reasons were noted in most cases. * For Standard of Proof – no additional policy work seems needed based on completion of the “Respondent Prevailed” case analysis. (Please see the attached, updated Claims Denied Analysis table – updated from the last version circulated for the last Sub Team meeting in late July – for details of the case reviews.) * Page 27 (in two places): minor clarification (the same one in both places), no substantive change * Page 26: suggested textual change of “mandatory” template to “uniform” template for Determinations * Page 29: minor clarifications, no substantive changes (note – specific tightening of recommendation not to take up a WG member’s suggestion to have notices to registries and registrars sent in the same language) * Page 32: minor clarification, no substantive change * Page 33: suggested addition of a specific question related to the existing recommendation for WG consideration * Page 37: no substantive change, but specific text added to reflect substantive change from Page 15 Thank you for your attention to this matter, and in advance for your feedback. Cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 18:39 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Review of Draft URS Policy Recommendations/Operational Fixes Dear URS Documents Sub Team members, The RPM PDP Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC is cancelled. Instead, in preparation for the Working Group meeting to be held on 05 September, the Co-Chairs are requesting that the Sub Teams should review their draft URS policy recommendations and operational fixes reflected in the attached current version of the Super Consolidated table to ensure that they are specific and justified proposals for which there is sub team agreement for full WG discussion and consideration. For example, a recommendation might be, ““Providers should be required to check the websites of the other URS and UDRP Providers to ensure a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding” to replace the current language at “4. Administrative Review, which currently reads, “WG to consider whether to recommend that Providers check the websites of the other Providers to ensure a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding or court case.” That would create a specific detailed proposal as well as drop the reference to court cases, which the Providers Sub Team determined on its last call would be administratively burdensome, as well as unnecessary as a registrant would be in the best position to know of pending litigation against a domain. Putting this proposal out for public comment would allow the community to weigh in on whether this proposal had merit, or was unnecessary due to the brief duration of URS actions. To this end, the Sub Team leader will suggest language for consideration and send it to the email list by tomorrow, 28 August, for the Sub Team members to consider with changes finalized by COB this Wednesday, in lieu of a meeting. If the Sub Team members feel they need to meet, it is suggested that a meeting could be scheduled for this Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC, so Sub Team members should hold this slot in case it is needed. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-chairs