Dear all, Just FYI that there is another conference call going on in the same Adobe Connect room as our meeting coming up in 30 minutes, so staff would like to request that you request to enter the AC room only starting from 10 minutes before the call (i.e. starting only at 1750 UTC). Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience! Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 17:11 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda and related documents for RPM Documents Sub Team call on 28 February Dear Sub Team members, We hope you have been able to review the updated Consolidated URS Document that Berry circulated on 22 February (re-attached here for your convenience). If we may, staff would like to suggest that the call tomorrow be focused on outstanding issues and specific topics from the updated consolidated document that your review reveals as inaccurate or requiring additional work, and of course the remaining topics in the table. This should allow us to make further progress and not re-open discussion on agreed points. The updated Consolidated URS Document as well as the notes from the Sub Team call last week have also been posted to the Sub Team wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/7hi8B. To that end, we wish to propose the following agenda (we have not had the chance to run it by J. Scott, so it is very definitely subject to change): 1. Roll call 2. Discuss those topics/sections from last week that are now noted (in the 22 February updated document) as requiring additional Sub Team work (e.g. the need to refine certain questions for Practitioners and Providers); as part of this discussion, the points brought up in email by Brian and Rebecca can also be discussed as well as any additional inaccuracies or concerns you may spot in the updated document 3. Discuss the remaining topics in the table, to identify data needs and potential sources 4. Next steps For agenda item #2, staff has prepared two short documents (attached) that we hope can facilitate any needed additional discussion of the questions to be refined before sending to the Practitioner and Provider Sub Teams. Please note that they do not replace the Consolidated URS Document (which remains the authoritative source of agreed items); however, we hope they will not only aid your work but can also be considered as a useful way to highlight what you propose be sent to the other two Sub Teams when you report to the full Working Group. For agenda item #4, staff believes that the Working Group co-chairs plan to use some part of the sessions allocated to our Working Group at ICANN61 for reports from and discussions of the work of the various Sub Teams. As such, we recommend that, for the upcoming Sub Team call, you plan on allocating at least a few minutes to agree on what and how you will be reporting back to the full group. J. Scott, all – please let us know if you’d like to modify the agenda or have additional points to bring up for Sub Team discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Monday, February 26, 2018 at 14:36 To: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:00 UTC Hi Rebecca, As I said on the call, we are effectively trying to prove a negative, albeit apparently somehow with the assistance of data (which may prove elusive). What we can look at for example is whether the providers fulfil their notification obligations (which consist of notice by email, post, and fax to the registrant, tech and admin contacts, and any email address the complainant provides). The claim that some registrants may choose not to respond was not however “cherry-picked” (in that it was not made in reference to a specific “problem case”), it was merely put forward as an anecdotal consideration, and although it was not my claim I believe at that it was even put forward to suggest that we ought to be circumspect about assigning a problem where there may not be one (or at least less of one than the “data” would lead you to believe at first instance). Best regards, Brian From: Tushnet, Rebecca [mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 6:41 PM To: BECKHAM, Brian; Berry Cobb; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:00 UTC If practitioner experience isn't relevant (I agree it's not necessarily representative of the full universe), why should our notes include the factual claim from a member of the WG that registrants often choose not to respond? What is the factual, non-cherry picked evidence for that claim? Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 12:19:00 PM To: Berry Cobb; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:00 UTC Thanks for these good notes Berry, Just one question/clarification, as to this note: “What type of mark was submitted in complaint? Qualitative experiences from Practitioners as it relates to what they see in regards to Standing, Grounds, Filing Period [Need to further develop these questions]” If I understand the way this is recorded correctly (this comes up at about minute 21 on the call), I raised concerns about standing/grounds experiences from practitioners, and suggested that instead that we simply look at whether the mark is listed in the decision (note that as a filing requirement/compliance review matter, there is a requirement that the complaint list the mark on which it is based). The same concern has been raised numerous times as to the standard of proof, namely that if we simply ask practitioners for their experiences there is a significant risk of cherry-picking for effect and focusing in only on a few select cases that people feel should have gone a different way, and we are not privy to the pleadings (and, frankly unfortunately many of the decisions are extremely light on text/reasoning). I would also like to see if the notes can reflect that in terms of notice (building on the provider obligations) that in many cases the registrant chooses not to respond, and this should not be mistaken as a “notice issue”. Thanks! Brian From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 4:19 AM To: gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:00 UTC Hi All, Please find attached the meeting notes and the updated the Complication of URS Discussion Documents that we reviewed yesterday. The notes highlight each sections the group reviewed with a summary of data sources. The data sources were then imported into a new column #5 labeled “Data Sources”. I tried to detail which data sources need to be passed to the Practitioners or the Providers, but I think we will want to spend a little time refining the actual request/questions we want them to take on. We can discuss more on our next call. Our next call is scheduled for 28 Feb. 2018 at 18:00 UTC. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 17:48 To: gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Recordings, Attendance, & AC Chat for RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call held Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 18:00 UTC Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat transcript attached to this email, and the mp3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call held Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 18:00 UTC Attendance and recordings of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7hi8B<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_7hi8B&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=KnoWjcAyzIrdmL07qIDHDleOIfJoW_OWv0-WLc7gTvk&s=cfBxzB93nP6817NZdleXTrCCDSWPs43djGRCsGiEbe8&e=> Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-documents-21feb18-en.mp3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gnso-2Drpm-2Dreview-2Durs-2Ddocuments-2D21feb18-2Den.mp3&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=KnoWjcAyzIrdmL07qIDHDleOIfJoW_OWv0-WLc7gTvk&s=tv0r2Do0PJTI_dITML6Ey5bCXCr3p7fgI_MDUHvkEqQ&e=> Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4ipaheruds/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__participate.icann.org_p4ipaheruds_-3FOWASP-5FCSRFTOKEN-3D9b19dba8ccfaa74a1f84aabd2cbf6b308ed82b52e0357dbfaf02810e749d2e3c&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=KnoWjcAyzIrdmL07qIDHDleOIfJoW_OWv0-WLc7gTvk&s=rMv1inohRZG7OcBRGzeaw-3XdfLGCpguCioxqKr8JJM&e=> 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_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=tfAXvExKGQm_dLUmcPvKRPZjkN59C1yaAhUWzvHBaxM&s=flwO6Bbv0xVjqRxqQnmGYTtMtKgfTCxLKr3M-kAqYjM&e=> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_gnso-2Drpm-2Ddocuments_&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=KnoWjcAyzIrdmL07qIDHDleOIfJoW_OWv0-WLc7gTvk&s=VuKlbYx-aboLLazLcdirpExvkIXB_zYTzhhEnlul6wM&e=> Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/zRW8B<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_zRW8B&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=KnoWjcAyzIrdmL07qIDHDleOIfJoW_OWv0-WLc7gTvk&s=W-YXXQXBNunE6H0u4hTOsNYnwjYYlrRbGToVJdpZuNk&e=> Thank you. Kind regards, Julie