- Gnso-rpm-practitioner - lists.icann.org

FOR YOUR REVIEW & FEEDBACK SOONEST (Re: Review of Draft URS Policy Recommendations/Operational Fixes)
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

Dear URS Practitioners Sub Team members, Following up on the note on behalf of the RPM Working Group co-chairs (below) and on behalf of Jason Schaeffer, 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 and strikeout in the document. Please note that the Practitioners Sub Team had three suggested operational fixes and no policy recommendations. Of these, very minor changes are being suggested to two of the three operational fixes to ensure greater clarity. The third operational fix remains unchanged from the originally suggested text. 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. If it is deemed that a meeting is not needed, and no objections are received concerning the changes, staff will send the revised URS Super Consolidated Topics Table to the RPM PDP Working Group to review by COB Friday, 31 August. For your convenience, here are all the proposed revisions, shown in redline/strikeout in the URS Super Consolidated Topics document (attached): D. STANDARD OF PROOF 2. Examiners Guide Pages 14-15: “Recommends working with Providers, to hire Researchers and/or Academics who study URS decisions closely, perhaps with the help of volunteer Practitioners to createing educational materials to provide more guidance to educate or instruct practitioners on what is needed to meet the ‘clear and convincing’ burden of proof in a URS proceeding.” Page 15: “Parties would find value in the creation of Recommends working with Providers, to hire Researchers and/or Academics who study URS decisions closely, perhaps with the help of volunteer Practitioners to create an “Overview for URS Decisions” (like the WIPO Overview on UDRP Cases) F. REMEDIES 2. Duration of Suspension Period 3. Review of Implementation Page 24: “Sub Team recommends an enhanced education to help Registrars understand how to implement relief and gain better awareness of URS procedures.” [NOTE: Unchanged from the original suggested text.] Thank you for your attention to this matter, and in advance for your feedback. Cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 6:30 PM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: Review of Draft URS Policy Recommendations/Operational Fixes Dear URS Practitioners 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

1 0

Review of Draft URS Policy Recommendations/Operational Fixes
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 27, 2018

Aug. 27, 2018

Dear URS Practitioners 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

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat for RPM Sub Team for URS Documents call held on Wednesday, 31 July 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 1, 2018

Aug. 1, 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, 31 July 2018 at 15:00 UTC. As a reminder, RPM Providers and Practitioners were invited to join. Attendance and recording of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/NgdpBQ> https://community.icann.org/x/NgdpBQ Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpms-sub-team-urs-documents-31jul18-en.mp3 AC Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p56t1hci2zh/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=14dea907460b8fed 1934c6322f81020ab8465cb463a6521d925e42e825da8334> https://participate.icann.org/p56t1hci2zh/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> 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> https://community.icann.org/x/zRW8B Kind Regards, Terri

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-practitioner] Invite - URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 25 July 2018, 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

Dear URS Practitioners Sub Team members, The URS Practitioners and URS Providers Sub Teams have been invited to join the URS Documents Sub Team call tomorrow, Wednesday, at 17:00-18:30 UTC because the URS Documents Sub Team will be discussing the data identified via the survey conducted by your Sub Team relating to the compilation of URS topics. Please see below the agenda for that meeting and the attached referenced documents. Please also review the recording of last week’s URS Documents Sub Team meeting: 2018-07-18: MP3. In addition, please note that for the next full RPM Working Group call on Wednesday, 01 August at 17:00 UTC, the URS Sub Teams will be asked to present the issues they have identified based on the data they have collected. As you may recall, the URS Practitioners Sub Team presented the results of the URS Practitioners Survey and possible issues that were identified to the full RPM Working Group at ICANN62. Please see the attached document and slides. These data also have been compiled by the URS Documents Sub Team for discussion as noted above. Finally, note that the URS Practitioners and URS Providers Sub Teams do not have meetings scheduled this week. Please let staff know as soon as possible if you wish to schedule a meeting prior to the full Working Group meeting next week. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "mail(a)berrycobb.com" <mail(a)berrycobb.com> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:39 AM To: "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Agenda - URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 25 July 2018, 17:00 UTC Hi All, Please find the proposed agenda for the Documents Sub-team Meeting on 25 July 2018 @ 17:00 UTC: Agenda Bash, SOI updates After action review of Sections A-E Substantive deliberations on key topics of the URS (Sections F+) Standard of Proof and Defenses (continue from last week) Remedies Appeal Overlapping Process Costs Language Abuse of Process Education and Training URS Providers 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 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 Next steps - report to the full WG, coordinate with the other Sub Teams as necessary 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

Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REVISED FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 21, 2018

June 21, 2018

Dear all, Seeing no further comments, staff will send the slides and survey results out to the WG today noting that they are for reference for the presentation to be provided by the Sub Team in Panama. Thanks so much for all your help! Best, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:33 AM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REVISED FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, Please see the attached revised slides for review. If there are no further changes staff will send these and the survey results (also attached) to the WG for reference by COB today. Note: On today’s WG call at 17:00 the Sub Team can provide the brief update that the survey results and presentations slides will be send to the WG today, and that the presentation is scheduled to take place during the first RPM PDP WG session at ICANN62 on Wednesday, 27 June from 10:30 to Noon local time (UTC-5). Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn(a)kilpatricktownsend.com> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 12:46 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, "Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-practitioner" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Kathy Thanks for the comments. I still think that two thirds or more of the folks flagged this as an issue. So while some may have thought the URS was satisfactory in solving their immediate problem, many thought the relief was inadequate. Consequently, I don't think at this stage we should be picking what relief is recommended, but we should be saying this is an issue and should be addressed, and here are some suggestions how. From: kathy(a)kathykleiman.com Sent: June 19, 2018 10:44 PM To: gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Hi Julie, Georges, Jason and All, If the promised relief were actually provided, I wonder whether people would be more satisfied? (p.7) I think implementation, as the slides note, will be key. But I'm not sure that the slides say that relief is not adequate and something better is needed. (p.10) One-third of practitioners said it was adequate (agree and strongly agree). That would include both complainant and respondent practitioners (since we only have two respondent attorneys). So it seems that the responses are mixed on this one, and the slide summary seems right to me. Circling back to implementation - if parties actually got the remedy they were promised, how much more satisfied would they be? Best, Kathy On 6/19/2018 6:31 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote: Julie: Thank you for this. Overall it looks good. My one comment is on the award. we suggest a negotiated transfer, but comments also suggested an out and out transfer to a winning party as opposed to suspension, so this should be included as one of the possible options. I think the point is that the responses suggest that the relief is not adequate and something better is needed. Thanks, Georges From: julie.hedlund(a)icann.org Sent: June 18, 2018 10:12 AM To: gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, This is a reminder of the actions below. Best, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:18 PM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, Per the actions items below from today’s meeting, please see the attached documents for review: Survey results converted to a Word and PDF document; PowerPoint Presentation and PDF including current status, next steps, explanation of the list of practitioners, number of responses, and issues identified with possible actions (including bullet points based on today’s discussion). Please send your comments ASAP but no later than COB on Tuesday, 19 June. Staff will incorporate the changes and send the documents in PDF to the WG to review on 20 June. Thank you very much for your help! Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 2:52 PM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners meeting today (14 June 2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording and attendance records. See: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-06-14+Sub+Team+for+UR… [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ACTION ITEMS - Staff to convert the survey results into a word/PDF doc and insert sub headings by Today (Thu, 14 June) - Staff to identify issues raised and responses that may result in actions, and circulate the information in the PowerPoint format by Today (Thu, 14 June). The possible issues include relief awarded, issues with relief (e.g. Chinese registrar) and length of submissions - Staff to send out the survey results and staff document on Wednesday, 20 June and ask WG members to review them before they arrive in Panama. - Sub Team to provide comment/input on the staff document via email by Tuesday, 19 June - Sub Team to focus on the significant responses and key areas highlighted in the staff document NOTES Overview of the Practitioners Survey Results - Survey is broken into several sections - 38 practitioners on the distribution list, got 14 responses - Survey was open for three-week period; INTA/GDD Summit may have hindered the response rates - Two slides per question for two different views (i.e., chart, percentage) - Results are displayed based on how SurveyMonkey captured them - Were there any practitioners who tried to file later but were turned away? - Survey is still open, other practitioners may still file if they wish. SECTION 1: Background & Perspectives Q1. In how many URS proceedings have you been involved as Complainant or its representative? - Will a 13 out of 38 responses be challenged by the usual suspects as not statistically significant and challenged on that basis? However, the survey should be given credibility because the people who responded provided thoughtful comments. - Some practitioners filed 10 or more complaints, and you get 100 total cases out of 800+ cases. The data is not insignificant. - Need to know who these parties are – it could be the brand protection firms or large law firms that filed the cases. Assume that a lot of brand protection firms have responded here. Q2. In how many URS proceedings have you been involved as Respondent or its representative? - Isn't the response to 2 and 4 inconsistent? - Respondents may have mistakenly answered these two questions or overlooked Q3. Overall, leaving aside the result of the proceeding, how was your experience with the process of a URS proceeding? - 85% - positive & extremely positive Q4: With respect to question 3 above, please indicate if you are - No comment Q5: With respect to question 3 above, please indicate what URS provider you used: - FORUM (Renee) helped promote / circulate the survey, hence many respondents are associated with NAF SECTION 2: Procedural Q1: When involved as Complainant or its representative in a URS proceeding, were there any difficulties with delivering notice of the proceeding to the Respondent? - Assume with GDPR that will increase as a problem - Unless of course the registrant's real name is DOE - MFSD accepts Doe Complaints in light of GDPR, based on their responses Q2: When involved as Respondent or its representative in a URS proceeding did the Respondent experience any issues with receiving notice of the proceeding, not including a delay in the Respondent sending the notice to its representative? - Either No or N/A Q3: Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision? - No comment Q4: If you answered "yes" to question 3 "Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision?", and leaving aside the result of the proceeding, from the choices below how would you characterize your experience with the appeal process after a URS proceeding? - No comment Q5: Have you or a party adverse to you in a URS proceeding ever sought de novo review under Paragraph 6.4 of the URS Procedure? - No comment Q6: If you answered "yes" to Question 5, and leaving aside the result of the proceeding, from your experience with de novo review under Paragraph 6.4 of the URS Procedure, do you believe this procedure should be retained, modified or removed? - No comment Q7: Please provide any comments you wish to add in explanation of any of your answers to questions 3 through 6 above. - No comment SECTION 3: Substantive Issues Q1: Do you believe that URS dispute resolution providers should provide a resource similar to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions for the URS? - No comment Q2: In your URS proceeding(s) do you believe the Decision/Determination provided the reasons upon which the decision was based, as required by Section 13(b) of the URS Rules? - No comment Q3: Do you believe that the URS is primarily being used for the types of cases for which it was intended, namely, clear cases of abuse? - No comment Q4: Have you encountered any problems with the implementation of the relief awarded following a URS decision? - No comment Q5: Do you believe the relief provided by a URS proceeding is adequate? - Not a surprising response and probably also explains why not a huge a number of cases filed - Q 22 comments on remedy among most useful responses of the survey - Procedural problem because registrars should be responding - The issue on the Chinese registrar is that it is often very hard to get Chinese registrars to implement decisions appropriately - Do you think language is an issue? - Not really all language issues. I have used native Chinese speakers and we still run into issues. The registrars put up a number of what appear road blocks. Some issues in the UDRP for example, may involve PRC laws re .com registration, so not surprised that there would be implementation issues with URS relief - Chinese registrars are not implementing the suspension and not obeying the rule. Need to find out what the issues are to resolve the problem. Q6: Should there be more guidance provided to educate or instruct practitioners on what is needed to meet the “clear and convincing” burden of proof in a URS proceeding? - No comment Q7: Based on your experience as a URS practitioner, is the standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for the burden of proof in a URS proceeding appropriate? - No comment Q8: Based on your experience with the URS, should the standard for the burden of proof be modified? - Highlight the second response and revisit at an appropriate time: Regarding remedies, would like to see an option of a voluntary (negotiated) transfer from a losing respondent to a prevailing complainant before the domain expires. There are negotiated transfers taking place, not sure how it is implemented. - It would be interesting to look at several of the suggested remedies to see if they were considered in the history of the promulgation of the URS. SECTION 4: Practical Issues Q1: Do you believe that the submission of a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce should be adequate evidence of use for a URS case? - Also "a right of first refusal to purchase the domain when it next becomes available." and "an established process for requesting suspension renewals" - Those were additional remedies raised that I wondered if they were considered in the original discussion of URS remedies when it was created. - Comment from Berry: within the Docs sub-team, we performed a domain disposition analysis. In short, Brand Protection companies acquired the domain on behalf of their client (most likely deleted and immediately registered), some cases the brand itself acquired the domain, DPML or Registry Reservations. Others chose to not renew the name. And of course there are instances where the domain was registered after it was deleted by a different registrant. We'll be presenting that snap shot of findings to the larger WG in the near future. Q2: Do you believe that the submission of an SMD file from the Trademark Clearing House to demonstrate that evidence of use was filed with the TMCH should be adequate proof of use for a URS case? - No comment Q3: Do you believe the filing fee for a URS is appropriate? - No comment Q4: Do you believe the response fee for a URS is appropriate? - Lowering the fee would probably impact on the quality of decisions - If the URS fee is lowered ICANN had better start issuing Pro Bono awards to the panelists Q5: Do you believe there are adequate means for searching prior URS cases? - No comment Q6: Do you believe the existing word limitation for filings in a URS proceeding is appropriate? - Distributed responses Q7: Do you believe the existing time frames for submitting filings in a URS proceeding are appropriate? - Distributed responses Q8: Do you believe the existing limitations on the submission of evidence in a URS proceeding are appropriate? - No comment Q9. Please provide any comments you wish to add in explanation of any of your answers to questions 1 through 8 above: - No comment SECTION 5: Other Q1: If you chose not to file a URS in a particular matter, what was the reason? Please choose from the following options: - No comment Q2: Do you believe that the URS Process as it now exists is an effective rights protection mechanism? - No comment Q3: If the URS was available in all gTLDs, would you use it? Why or why not? - No comment Q4: Please provide any comments you want to add to explain your answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 above: - No comment Q5: Leaving aside the result of the proceeding, have you had an experience with an Examiner having an actual or potential conflict of interest in a URS proceeding? - No comment Q6: Leaving aside the result of the proceeding, have you had an experience with an Examiner not being impartial and independent in a URS proceeding? - No comment General Comments - Good results but with small number of responses - Some of the suggestions in response to Q 39 and 43 seem like important procedural changes should not be particularly objectionable but would be easy fixes increasing the word limit to 1K words, allowing exhibits, and accommodations of additional evidence of bad faith - Nothing jumps out to be overwhelmingly surprising or negative. Exception is that some people are pushing for a stronger process, more like UDRP. Other than those exceptions, it is a good starting point. - Folks are satisfied generally, but are concerned about the relief granted. - Do we need to present all the data/questions? Or present a selected set as action items. - Present this in Panama is wiser, and we can answer questions, instead of sending out the results via emails. Concern is members may over analyze the results. - If the respondents have more negative experience, then we may have more responses. If they are overall satisfied with the experience, they may not respond. We would know if there is any serious problem. - Agree with Phil, the lack of major negative responses is encouraging, and that the core is working. - Should there be a decision now to close the survey so there is no attempt to alter the results once the current result is released? Yes, close the survey now. - Wed, 27 June 10:30-12:00 is the session to review Practitioner survey responses, kicking off the RPM sessions. - Jason would be in Panama, Georges would not, Jay would participate remotely. Next Steps - ACTION ITEM: Staff to convert the survey results into a word/PDF doc and insert sub headings by Today (Thu, 14 June) - ACTION ITEM: Staff to identify issues raised and responses that may result in actions and circulate the information in the PowerPoint format by Today (Thu, 14 June). The possible issues include relief awarded, issues with relief (e.g. Chinese registrar) and length of submissions - ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to provide comment/input on the staff documents via email by Tuesday, 19 June - ACTION ITEM: Staff to send out the survey results and staff document on Wednesday, 20 June and ask WG members to review them before they arrive in Panama. - ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to focus on the significant responses and key areas highlighted in the staff document Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-practitioner mailing list Gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-practitioner

1 0

REVISED FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 20, 2018

June 20, 2018

Dear all, Please see the attached revised slides for review. If there are no further changes staff will send these and the survey results (also attached) to the WG for reference by COB today. Note: On today’s WG call at 17:00 the Sub Team can provide the brief update that the survey results and presentations slides will be send to the WG today, and that the presentation is scheduled to take place during the first RPM PDP WG session at ICANN62 on Wednesday, 27 June from 10:30 to Noon local time (UTC-5). Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn(a)kilpatricktownsend.com> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 12:46 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, "Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-practitioner" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Kathy Thanks for the comments. I still think that two thirds or more of the folks flagged this as an issue. So while some may have thought the URS was satisfactory in solving their immediate problem, many thought the relief was inadequate. Consequently, I don't think at this stage we should be picking what relief is recommended, but we should be saying this is an issue and should be addressed, and here are some suggestions how. From: kathy(a)kathykleiman.com Sent: June 19, 2018 10:44 PM To: gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Hi Julie, Georges, Jason and All, If the promised relief were actually provided, I wonder whether people would be more satisfied? (p.7) I think implementation, as the slides note, will be key. But I'm not sure that the slides say that relief is not adequate and something better is needed. (p.10) One-third of practitioners said it was adequate (agree and strongly agree). That would include both complainant and respondent practitioners (since we only have two respondent attorneys). So it seems that the responses are mixed on this one, and the slide summary seems right to me. Circling back to implementation - if parties actually got the remedy they were promised, how much more satisfied would they be? Best, Kathy On 6/19/2018 6:31 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote: Julie: Thank you for this. Overall it looks good. My one comment is on the award. we suggest a negotiated transfer, but comments also suggested an out and out transfer to a winning party as opposed to suspension, so this should be included as one of the possible options. I think the point is that the responses suggest that the relief is not adequate and something better is needed. Thanks, Georges From: julie.hedlund(a)icann.org Sent: June 18, 2018 10:12 AM To: gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, This is a reminder of the actions below. Best, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:18 PM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, Per the actions items below from today’s meeting, please see the attached documents for review: Survey results converted to a Word and PDF document; PowerPoint Presentation and PDF including current status, next steps, explanation of the list of practitioners, number of responses, and issues identified with possible actions (including bullet points based on today’s discussion). Please send your comments ASAP but no later than COB on Tuesday, 19 June. Staff will incorporate the changes and send the documents in PDF to the WG to review on 20 June. Thank you very much for your help! Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 2:52 PM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners meeting today (14 June 2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording and attendance records. See: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-06-14+Sub+Team+for+UR… [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ACTION ITEMS - Staff to convert the survey results into a word/PDF doc and insert sub headings by Today (Thu, 14 June) - Staff to identify issues raised and responses that may result in actions, and circulate the information in the PowerPoint format by Today (Thu, 14 June). The possible issues include relief awarded, issues with relief (e.g. Chinese registrar) and length of submissions - Staff to send out the survey results and staff document on Wednesday, 20 June and ask WG members to review them before they arrive in Panama. - Sub Team to provide comment/input on the staff document via email by Tuesday, 19 June - Sub Team to focus on the significant responses and key areas highlighted in the staff document NOTES Overview of the Practitioners Survey Results - Survey is broken into several sections - 38 practitioners on the distribution list, got 14 responses - Survey was open for three-week period; INTA/GDD Summit may have hindered the response rates - Two slides per question for two different views (i.e., chart, percentage) - Results are displayed based on how SurveyMonkey captured them - Were there any practitioners who tried to file later but were turned away? - Survey is still open, other practitioners may still file if they wish. SECTION 1: Background & Perspectives Q1. In how many URS proceedings have you been involved as Complainant or its representative? - Will a 13 out of 38 responses be challenged by the usual suspects as not statistically significant and challenged on that basis? However, the survey should be given credibility because the people who responded provided thoughtful comments. - Some practitioners filed 10 or more complaints, and you get 100 total cases out of 800+ cases. The data is not insignificant. - Need to know who these parties are – it could be the brand protection firms or large law firms that filed the cases. Assume that a lot of brand protection firms have responded here. Q2. In how many URS proceedings have you been involved as Respondent or its representative? - Isn't the response to 2 and 4 inconsistent? - Respondents may have mistakenly answered these two questions or overlooked Q3. Overall, leaving aside the result of the proceeding, how was your experience with the process of a URS proceeding? - 85% - positive & extremely positive Q4: With respect to question 3 above, please indicate if you are - No comment Q5: With respect to question 3 above, please indicate what URS provider you used: - FORUM (Renee) helped promote / circulate the survey, hence many respondents are associated with NAF SECTION 2: Procedural Q1: When involved as Complainant or its representative in a URS proceeding, were there any difficulties with delivering notice of the proceeding to the Respondent? - Assume with GDPR that will increase as a problem - Unless of course the registrant's real name is DOE - MFSD accepts Doe Complaints in light of GDPR, based on their responses Q2: When involved as Respondent or its representative in a URS proceeding did the Respondent experience any issues with receiving notice of the proceeding, not including a delay in the Respondent sending the notice to its representative? - Either No or N/A Q3: Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision? - No comment Q4: If you answered "yes" to question 3 "Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision?", and leaving aside the result of the proceeding, from the choices below how would you characterize your experience with the appeal process after a URS proceeding? - No comment Q5: Have you or a party adverse to you in a URS proceeding ever sought de novo review under Paragraph 6.4 of the URS Procedure? - No comment Q6: If you answered "yes" to Question 5, and leaving aside the result of the proceeding, from your experience with de novo review under Paragraph 6.4 of the URS Procedure, do you believe this procedure should be retained, modified or removed? - No comment Q7: Please provide any comments you wish to add in explanation of any of your answers to questions 3 through 6 above. - No comment SECTION 3: Substantive Issues Q1: Do you believe that URS dispute resolution providers should provide a resource similar to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions for the URS? - No comment Q2: In your URS proceeding(s) do you believe the Decision/Determination provided the reasons upon which the decision was based, as required by Section 13(b) of the URS Rules? - No comment Q3: Do you believe that the URS is primarily being used for the types of cases for which it was intended, namely, clear cases of abuse? - No comment Q4: Have you encountered any problems with the implementation of the relief awarded following a URS decision? - No comment Q5: Do you believe the relief provided by a URS proceeding is adequate? - Not a surprising response and probably also explains why not a huge a number of cases filed - Q 22 comments on remedy among most useful responses of the survey - Procedural problem because registrars should be responding - The issue on the Chinese registrar is that it is often very hard to get Chinese registrars to implement decisions appropriately - Do you think language is an issue? - Not really all language issues. I have used native Chinese speakers and we still run into issues. The registrars put up a number of what appear road blocks. Some issues in the UDRP for example, may involve PRC laws re .com registration, so not surprised that there would be implementation issues with URS relief - Chinese registrars are not implementing the suspension and not obeying the rule. Need to find out what the issues are to resolve the problem. Q6: Should there be more guidance provided to educate or instruct practitioners on what is needed to meet the “clear and convincing” burden of proof in a URS proceeding? - No comment Q7: Based on your experience as a URS practitioner, is the standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for the burden of proof in a URS proceeding appropriate? - No comment Q8: Based on your experience with the URS, should the standard for the burden of proof be modified? - Highlight the second response and revisit at an appropriate time: Regarding remedies, would like to see an option of a voluntary (negotiated) transfer from a losing respondent to a prevailing complainant before the domain expires. There are negotiated transfers taking place, not sure how it is implemented. - It would be interesting to look at several of the suggested remedies to see if they were considered in the history of the promulgation of the URS. SECTION 4: Practical Issues Q1: Do you believe that the submission of a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce should be adequate evidence of use for a URS case? - Also "a right of first refusal to purchase the domain when it next becomes available." and "an established process for requesting suspension renewals" - Those were additional remedies raised that I wondered if they were considered in the original discussion of URS remedies when it was created. - Comment from Berry: within the Docs sub-team, we performed a domain disposition analysis. In short, Brand Protection companies acquired the domain on behalf of their client (most likely deleted and immediately registered), some cases the brand itself acquired the domain, DPML or Registry Reservations. Others chose to not renew the name. And of course there are instances where the domain was registered after it was deleted by a different registrant. We'll be presenting that snap shot of findings to the larger WG in the near future. Q2: Do you believe that the submission of an SMD file from the Trademark Clearing House to demonstrate that evidence of use was filed with the TMCH should be adequate proof of use for a URS case? - No comment Q3: Do you believe the filing fee for a URS is appropriate? - No comment Q4: Do you believe the response fee for a URS is appropriate? - Lowering the fee would probably impact on the quality of decisions - If the URS fee is lowered ICANN had better start issuing Pro Bono awards to the panelists Q5: Do you believe there are adequate means for searching prior URS cases? - No comment Q6: Do you believe the existing word limitation for filings in a URS proceeding is appropriate? - Distributed responses Q7: Do you believe the existing time frames for submitting filings in a URS proceeding are appropriate? - Distributed responses Q8: Do you believe the existing limitations on the submission of evidence in a URS proceeding are appropriate? - No comment Q9. Please provide any comments you wish to add in explanation of any of your answers to questions 1 through 8 above: - No comment SECTION 5: Other Q1: If you chose not to file a URS in a particular matter, what was the reason? Please choose from the following options: - No comment Q2: Do you believe that the URS Process as it now exists is an effective rights protection mechanism? - No comment Q3: If the URS was available in all gTLDs, would you use it? Why or why not? - No comment Q4: Please provide any comments you want to add to explain your answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 above: - No comment Q5: Leaving aside the result of the proceeding, have you had an experience with an Examiner having an actual or potential conflict of interest in a URS proceeding? - No comment Q6: Leaving aside the result of the proceeding, have you had an experience with an Examiner not being impartial and independent in a URS proceeding? - No comment General Comments - Good results but with small number of responses - Some of the suggestions in response to Q 39 and 43 seem like important procedural changes should not be particularly objectionable but would be easy fixes increasing the word limit to 1K words, allowing exhibits, and accommodations of additional evidence of bad faith - Nothing jumps out to be overwhelmingly surprising or negative. Exception is that some people are pushing for a stronger process, more like UDRP. Other than those exceptions, it is a good starting point. - Folks are satisfied generally, but are concerned about the relief granted. - Do we need to present all the data/questions? Or present a selected set as action items. - Present this in Panama is wiser, and we can answer questions, instead of sending out the results via emails. Concern is members may over analyze the results. - If the respondents have more negative experience, then we may have more responses. If they are overall satisfied with the experience, they may not respond. We would know if there is any serious problem. - Agree with Phil, the lack of major negative responses is encouraging, and that the core is working. - Should there be a decision now to close the survey so there is no attempt to alter the results once the current result is released? Yes, close the survey now. - Wed, 27 June 10:30-12:00 is the session to review Practitioner survey responses, kicking off the RPM sessions. - Jason would be in Panama, Georges would not, Jay would participate remotely. Next Steps - ACTION ITEM: Staff to convert the survey results into a word/PDF doc and insert sub headings by Today (Thu, 14 June) - ACTION ITEM: Staff to identify issues raised and responses that may result in actions and circulate the information in the PowerPoint format by Today (Thu, 14 June). The possible issues include relief awarded, issues with relief (e.g. Chinese registrar) and length of submissions - ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to provide comment/input on the staff documents via email by Tuesday, 19 June - ACTION ITEM: Staff to send out the survey results and staff document on Wednesday, 20 June and ask WG members to review them before they arrive in Panama. - ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to focus on the significant responses and key areas highlighted in the staff document Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-practitioner mailing list Gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-practitioner

1 0

REMINDER FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 20, 2018

June 20, 2018

Dear all, This is a reminder of the actions below. Best, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:18 PM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, Per the actions items below from today’s meeting, please see the attached documents for review: Survey results converted to a Word and PDF document; PowerPoint Presentation and PDF including current status, next steps, explanation of the list of practitioners, number of responses, and issues identified with possible actions (including bullet points based on today’s discussion). Please send your comments ASAP but no later than COB on Tuesday, 19 June. Staff will incorporate the changes and send the documents in PDF to the WG to review on 20 June. Thank you very much for your help! Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 2:52 PM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners meeting today (14 June 2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording and attendance records. See: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-06-14+Sub+Team+for+UR…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ACTION ITEMS - Staff to convert the survey results into a word/PDF doc and insert sub headings by Today (Thu, 14 June) - Staff to identify issues raised and responses that may result in actions, and circulate the information in the PowerPoint format by Today (Thu, 14 June). The possible issues include relief awarded, issues with relief (e.g. Chinese registrar) and length of submissions - Staff to send out the survey results and staff document on Wednesday, 20 June and ask WG members to review them before they arrive in Panama. - Sub Team to provide comment/input on the staff document via email by Tuesday, 19 June - Sub Team to focus on the significant responses and key areas highlighted in the staff document NOTES Overview of the Practitioners Survey Results - Survey is broken into several sections - 38 practitioners on the distribution list, got 14 responses - Survey was open for three-week period; INTA/GDD Summit may have hindered the response rates - Two slides per question for two different views (i.e., chart, percentage) - Results are displayed based on how SurveyMonkey captured them - Were there any practitioners who tried to file later but were turned away? - Survey is still open, other practitioners may still file if they wish. SECTION 1: Background & Perspectives Q1. In how many URS proceedings have you been involved as Complainant or its representative? - Will a 13 out of 38 responses be challenged by the usual suspects as not statistically significant and challenged on that basis? However, the survey should be given credibility because the people who responded provided thoughtful comments. - Some practitioners filed 10 or more complaints, and you get 100 total cases out of 800+ cases. The data is not insignificant. - Need to know who these parties are – it could be the brand protection firms or large law firms that filed the cases. Assume that a lot of brand protection firms have responded here. Q2. In how many URS proceedings have you been involved as Respondent or its representative? - Isn't the response to 2 and 4 inconsistent? - Respondents may have mistakenly answered these two questions or overlooked Q3. Overall, leaving aside the result of the proceeding, how was your experience with the process of a URS proceeding? - 85% - positive & extremely positive Q4: With respect to question 3 above, please indicate if you are - No comment Q5: With respect to question 3 above, please indicate what URS provider you used: - FORUM (Renee) helped promote / circulate the survey, hence many respondents are associated with NAF SECTION 2: Procedural Q1: When involved as Complainant or its representative in a URS proceeding, were there any difficulties with delivering notice of the proceeding to the Respondent? - Assume with GDPR that will increase as a problem - Unless of course the registrant's real name is DOE - MFSD accepts Doe Complaints in light of GDPR, based on their responses Q2: When involved as Respondent or its representative in a URS proceeding did the Respondent experience any issues with receiving notice of the proceeding, not including a delay in the Respondent sending the notice to its representative? - Either No or N/A Q3: Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision? - No comment Q4: If you answered "yes" to question 3 "Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision?", and leaving aside the result of the proceeding, from the choices below how would you characterize your experience with the appeal process after a URS proceeding? - No comment Q5: Have you or a party adverse to you in a URS proceeding ever sought de novo review under Paragraph 6.4 of the URS Procedure? - No comment Q6: If you answered "yes" to Question 5, and leaving aside the result of the proceeding, from your experience with de novo review under Paragraph 6.4 of the URS Procedure, do you believe this procedure should be retained, modified or removed? - No comment Q7: Please provide any comments you wish to add in explanation of any of your answers to questions 3 through 6 above. - No comment SECTION 3: Substantive Issues Q1: Do you believe that URS dispute resolution providers should provide a resource similar to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions for the URS? - No comment Q2: In your URS proceeding(s) do you believe the Decision/Determination provided the reasons upon which the decision was based, as required by Section 13(b) of the URS Rules? - No comment Q3: Do you believe that the URS is primarily being used for the types of cases for which it was intended, namely, clear cases of abuse? - No comment Q4: Have you encountered any problems with the implementation of the relief awarded following a URS decision? - No comment Q5: Do you believe the relief provided by a URS proceeding is adequate? - Not a surprising response and probably also explains why not a huge a number of cases filed - Q 22 comments on remedy among most useful responses of the survey - Procedural problem because registrars should be responding - The issue on the Chinese registrar is that it is often very hard to get Chinese registrars to implement decisions appropriately - Do you think language is an issue? - Not really all language issues. I have used native Chinese speakers and we still run into issues. The registrars put up a number of what appear road blocks. Some issues in the UDRP for example, may involve PRC laws re .com registration, so not surprised that there would be implementation issues with URS relief - Chinese registrars are not implementing the suspension and not obeying the rule. Need to find out what the issues are to resolve the problem. Q6: Should there be more guidance provided to educate or instruct practitioners on what is needed to meet the “clear and convincing” burden of proof in a URS proceeding? - No comment Q7: Based on your experience as a URS practitioner, is the standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for the burden of proof in a URS proceeding appropriate? - No comment Q8: Based on your experience with the URS, should the standard for the burden of proof be modified? - Highlight the second response and revisit at an appropriate time: Regarding remedies, would like to see an option of a voluntary (negotiated) transfer from a losing respondent to a prevailing complainant before the domain expires. There are negotiated transfers taking place, not sure how it is implemented. - It would be interesting to look at several of the suggested remedies to see if they were considered in the history of the promulgation of the URS. SECTION 4: Practical Issues Q1: Do you believe that the submission of a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce should be adequate evidence of use for a URS case? - Also "a right of first refusal to purchase the domain when it next becomes available." and "an established process for requesting suspension renewals" - Those were additional remedies raised that I wondered if they were considered in the original discussion of URS remedies when it was created. - Comment from Berry: within the Docs sub-team, we performed a domain disposition analysis. In short, Brand Protection companies acquired the domain on behalf of their client (most likely deleted and immediately registered), some cases the brand itself acquired the domain, DPML or Registry Reservations. Others chose to not renew the name. And of course there are instances where the domain was registered after it was deleted by a different registrant. We'll be presenting that snap shot of findings to the larger WG in the near future. Q2: Do you believe that the submission of an SMD file from the Trademark Clearing House to demonstrate that evidence of use was filed with the TMCH should be adequate proof of use for a URS case? - No comment Q3: Do you believe the filing fee for a URS is appropriate? - No comment Q4: Do you believe the response fee for a URS is appropriate? - Lowering the fee would probably impact on the quality of decisions - If the URS fee is lowered ICANN had better start issuing Pro Bono awards to the panelists Q5: Do you believe there are adequate means for searching prior URS cases? - No comment Q6: Do you believe the existing word limitation for filings in a URS proceeding is appropriate? - Distributed responses Q7: Do you believe the existing time frames for submitting filings in a URS proceeding are appropriate? - Distributed responses Q8: Do you believe the existing limitations on the submission of evidence in a URS proceeding are appropriate? - No comment Q9. Please provide any comments you wish to add in explanation of any of your answers to questions 1 through 8 above: - No comment SECTION 5: Other Q1: If you chose not to file a URS in a particular matter, what was the reason? Please choose from the following options: - No comment Q2: Do you believe that the URS Process as it now exists is an effective rights protection mechanism? - No comment Q3: If the URS was available in all gTLDs, would you use it? Why or why not? - No comment Q4: Please provide any comments you want to add to explain your answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 above: - No comment Q5: Leaving aside the result of the proceeding, have you had an experience with an Examiner having an actual or potential conflict of interest in a URS proceeding? - No comment Q6: Leaving aside the result of the proceeding, have you had an experience with an Examiner not being impartial and independent in a URS proceeding? - No comment General Comments - Good results but with small number of responses - Some of the suggestions in response to Q 39 and 43 seem like important procedural changes should not be particularly objectionable but would be easy fixes increasing the word limit to 1K words, allowing exhibits, and accommodations of additional evidence of bad faith - Nothing jumps out to be overwhelmingly surprising or negative. Exception is that some people are pushing for a stronger process, more like UDRP. Other than those exceptions, it is a good starting point. - Folks are satisfied generally, but are concerned about the relief granted. - Do we need to present all the data/questions? Or present a selected set as action items. - Present this in Panama is wiser, and we can answer questions, instead of sending out the results via emails. Concern is members may over analyze the results. - If the respondents have more negative experience, then we may have more responses. If they are overall satisfied with the experience, they may not respond. We would know if there is any serious problem. - Agree with Phil, the lack of major negative responses is encouraging, and that the core is working. - Should there be a decision now to close the survey so there is no attempt to alter the results once the current result is released? Yes, close the survey now. - Wed, 27 June 10:30-12:00 is the session to review Practitioner survey responses, kicking off the RPM sessions. - Jason would be in Panama, Georges would not, Jay would participate remotely. Next Steps - ACTION ITEM: Staff to convert the survey results into a word/PDF doc and insert sub headings by Today (Thu, 14 June) - ACTION ITEM: Staff to identify issues raised and responses that may result in actions and circulate the information in the PowerPoint format by Today (Thu, 14 June). The possible issues include relief awarded, issues with relief (e.g. Chinese registrar) and length of submissions - ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to provide comment/input on the staff documents via email by Tuesday, 19 June - ACTION ITEM: Staff to send out the survey results and staff document on Wednesday, 20 June and ask WG members to review them before they arrive in Panama. - ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to focus on the significant responses and key areas highlighted in the staff document

3 4

Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

George, Thank you so much. That is a very helpful suggestion and staff has noted it. Best, Julie From: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn(a)kilpatricktownsend.com> Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 6:31 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-practitioner" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Julie: Thank you for this. Overall it looks good. My one comment is on the award. we suggest a negotiated transfer, but comments also suggested an out and out transfer to a winning party as opposed to suspension, so this should be included as one of the possible options. I think the point is that the responses suggest that the relief is not adequate and something better is needed. Thanks, Georges From: julie.hedlund(a)icann.org Sent: June 18, 2018 10:12 AM To: gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, This is a reminder of the actions below. Best, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:18 PM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, Per the actions items below from today’s meeting, please see the attached documents for review: Survey results converted to a Word and PDF document; PowerPoint Presentation and PDF including current status, next steps, explanation of the list of practitioners, number of responses, and issues identified with possible actions (including bullet points based on today’s discussion). Please send your comments ASAP but no later than COB on Tuesday, 19 June. Staff will incorporate the changes and send the documents in PDF to the WG to review on 20 June. Thank you very much for your help! Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 2:52 PM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC Dear all, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners meeting today (14 June 2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording and attendance records. See: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-06-14+Sub+Team+for+UR… [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ACTION ITEMS - Staff to convert the survey results into a word/PDF doc and insert sub headings by Today (Thu, 14 June) - Staff to identify issues raised and responses that may result in actions, and circulate the information in the PowerPoint format by Today (Thu, 14 June). The possible issues include relief awarded, issues with relief (e.g. Chinese registrar) and length of submissions - Staff to send out the survey results and staff document on Wednesday, 20 June and ask WG members to review them before they arrive in Panama. - Sub Team to provide comment/input on the staff document via email by Tuesday, 19 June - Sub Team to focus on the significant responses and key areas highlighted in the staff document NOTES Overview of the Practitioners Survey Results - Survey is broken into several sections - 38 practitioners on the distribution list, got 14 responses - Survey was open for three-week period; INTA/GDD Summit may have hindered the response rates - Two slides per question for two different views (i.e., chart, percentage) - Results are displayed based on how SurveyMonkey captured them - Were there any practitioners who tried to file later but were turned away? - Survey is still open, other practitioners may still file if they wish. SECTION 1: Background & Perspectives Q1. In how many URS proceedings have you been involved as Complainant or its representative? - Will a 13 out of 38 responses be challenged by the usual suspects as not statistically significant and challenged on that basis? However, the survey should be given credibility because the people who responded provided thoughtful comments. - Some practitioners filed 10 or more complaints, and you get 100 total cases out of 800+ cases. The data is not insignificant. - Need to know who these parties are – it could be the brand protection firms or large law firms that filed the cases. Assume that a lot of brand protection firms have responded here. Q2. In how many URS proceedings have you been involved as Respondent or its representative? - Isn't the response to 2 and 4 inconsistent? - Respondents may have mistakenly answered these two questions or overlooked Q3. Overall, leaving aside the result of the proceeding, how was your experience with the process of a URS proceeding? - 85% - positive & extremely positive Q4: With respect to question 3 above, please indicate if you are - No comment Q5: With respect to question 3 above, please indicate what URS provider you used: - FORUM (Renee) helped promote / circulate the survey, hence many respondents are associated with NAF SECTION 2: Procedural Q1: When involved as Complainant or its representative in a URS proceeding, were there any difficulties with delivering notice of the proceeding to the Respondent? - Assume with GDPR that will increase as a problem - Unless of course the registrant's real name is DOE - MFSD accepts Doe Complaints in light of GDPR, based on their responses Q2: When involved as Respondent or its representative in a URS proceeding did the Respondent experience any issues with receiving notice of the proceeding, not including a delay in the Respondent sending the notice to its representative? - Either No or N/A Q3: Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision? - No comment Q4: If you answered "yes" to question 3 "Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision?", and leaving aside the result of the proceeding, from the choices below how would you characterize your experience with the appeal process after a URS proceeding? - No comment Q5: Have you or a party adverse to you in a URS proceeding ever sought de novo review under Paragraph 6.4 of the URS Procedure? - No comment Q6: If you answered "yes" to Question 5, and leaving aside the result of the proceeding, from your experience with de novo review under Paragraph 6.4 of the URS Procedure, do you believe this procedure should be retained, modified or removed? - No comment Q7: Please provide any comments you wish to add in explanation of any of your answers to questions 3 through 6 above. - No comment SECTION 3: Substantive Issues Q1: Do you believe that URS dispute resolution providers should provide a resource similar to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions for the URS? - No comment Q2: In your URS proceeding(s) do you believe the Decision/Determination provided the reasons upon which the decision was based, as required by Section 13(b) of the URS Rules? - No comment Q3: Do you believe that the URS is primarily being used for the types of cases for which it was intended, namely, clear cases of abuse? - No comment Q4: Have you encountered any problems with the implementation of the relief awarded following a URS decision? - No comment Q5: Do you believe the relief provided by a URS proceeding is adequate? - Not a surprising response and probably also explains why not a huge a number of cases filed - Q 22 comments on remedy among most useful responses of the survey - Procedural problem because registrars should be responding - The issue on the Chinese registrar is that it is often very hard to get Chinese registrars to implement decisions appropriately - Do you think language is an issue? - Not really all language issues. I have used native Chinese speakers and we still run into issues. The registrars put up a number of what appear road blocks. Some issues in the UDRP for example, may involve PRC laws re .com registration, so not surprised that there would be implementation issues with URS relief - Chinese registrars are not implementing the suspension and not obeying the rule. Need to find out what the issues are to resolve the problem. Q6: Should there be more guidance provided to educate or instruct practitioners on what is needed to meet the “clear and convincing” burden of proof in a URS proceeding? - No comment Q7: Based on your experience as a URS practitioner, is the standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for the burden of proof in a URS proceeding appropriate? - No comment Q8: Based on your experience with the URS, should the standard for the burden of proof be modified? - Highlight the second response and revisit at an appropriate time: Regarding remedies, would like to see an option of a voluntary (negotiated) transfer from a losing respondent to a prevailing complainant before the domain expires. There are negotiated transfers taking place, not sure how it is implemented. - It would be interesting to look at several of the suggested remedies to see if they were considered in the history of the promulgation of the URS. SECTION 4: Practical Issues Q1: Do you believe that the submission of a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce should be adequate evidence of use for a URS case? - Also "a right of first refusal to purchase the domain when it next becomes available." and "an established process for requesting suspension renewals" - Those were additional remedies raised that I wondered if they were considered in the original discussion of URS remedies when it was created. - Comment from Berry: within the Docs sub-team, we performed a domain disposition analysis. In short, Brand Protection companies acquired the domain on behalf of their client (most likely deleted and immediately registered), some cases the brand itself acquired the domain, DPML or Registry Reservations. Others chose to not renew the name. And of course there are instances where the domain was registered after it was deleted by a different registrant. We'll be presenting that snap shot of findings to the larger WG in the near future. Q2: Do you believe that the submission of an SMD file from the Trademark Clearing House to demonstrate that evidence of use was filed with the TMCH should be adequate proof of use for a URS case? - No comment Q3: Do you believe the filing fee for a URS is appropriate? - No comment Q4: Do you believe the response fee for a URS is appropriate? - Lowering the fee would probably impact on the quality of decisions - If the URS fee is lowered ICANN had better start issuing Pro Bono awards to the panelists Q5: Do you believe there are adequate means for searching prior URS cases? - No comment Q6: Do you believe the existing word limitation for filings in a URS proceeding is appropriate? - Distributed responses Q7: Do you believe the existing time frames for submitting filings in a URS proceeding are appropriate? - Distributed responses Q8: Do you believe the existing limitations on the submission of evidence in a URS proceeding are appropriate? - No comment Q9. Please provide any comments you wish to add in explanation of any of your answers to questions 1 through 8 above: - No comment SECTION 5: Other Q1: If you chose not to file a URS in a particular matter, what was the reason? Please choose from the following options: - No comment Q2: Do you believe that the URS Process as it now exists is an effective rights protection mechanism? - No comment Q3: If the URS was available in all gTLDs, would you use it? Why or why not? - No comment Q4: Please provide any comments you want to add to explain your answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 above: - No comment Q5: Leaving aside the result of the proceeding, have you had an experience with an Examiner having an actual or potential conflict of interest in a URS proceeding? - No comment Q6: Leaving aside the result of the proceeding, have you had an experience with an Examiner not being impartial and independent in a URS proceeding? - No comment General Comments - Good results but with small number of responses - Some of the suggestions in response to Q 39 and 43 seem like important procedural changes should not be particularly objectionable but would be easy fixes increasing the word limit to 1K words, allowing exhibits, and accommodations of additional evidence of bad faith - Nothing jumps out to be overwhelmingly surprising or negative. Exception is that some people are pushing for a stronger process, more like UDRP. Other than those exceptions, it is a good starting point. - Folks are satisfied generally, but are concerned about the relief granted. - Do we need to present all the data/questions? Or present a selected set as action items. - Present this in Panama is wiser, and we can answer questions, instead of sending out the results via emails. Concern is members may over analyze the results. - If the respondents have more negative experience, then we may have more responses. If they are overall satisfied with the experience, they may not respond. We would know if there is any serious problem. - Agree with Phil, the lack of major negative responses is encouraging, and that the core is working. - Should there be a decision now to close the survey so there is no attempt to alter the results once the current result is released? Yes, close the survey now. - Wed, 27 June 10:30-12:00 is the session to review Practitioner survey responses, kicking off the RPM sessions. - Jason would be in Panama, Georges would not, Jay would participate remotely. Next Steps - ACTION ITEM: Staff to convert the survey results into a word/PDF doc and insert sub headings by Today (Thu, 14 June) - ACTION ITEM: Staff to identify issues raised and responses that may result in actions and circulate the information in the PowerPoint format by Today (Thu, 14 June). The possible issues include relief awarded, issues with relief (e.g. Chinese registrar) and length of submissions - ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to provide comment/input on the staff documents via email by Tuesday, 19 June - ACTION ITEM: Staff to send out the survey results and staff document on Wednesday, 20 June and ask WG members to review them before they arrive in Panama. - ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to focus on the significant responses and key areas highlighted in the staff document Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

1 0

RESULTS: URS Practitioners Sub Team Meeting Doodle Poll
by Julie Hedlund June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

Dear all, Thanks so much for taking the poll. The two time slots with the most responses (7) were 1500 and 1700 UTC on Thursday, 14 June. Staff suggests scheduling for 1700 UTC since that allows for fewer conflicts with other GNSO meetings that the GNSO Secretariat staff may need to support. A meeting notice will be sent out later today, and staff also will be sending the survey results. Best, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, June 11, 2018 at 9:14 AM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER: URS Practitioners Sub Team Meeting Doodle Poll Dear all, We are still short on responses to this poll. If you have not already done so, please take the poll today. The times with the most responses are on Thursday, 14 June at 1500, 1600, and 1700 UTC. Thanks so much for your help! Best, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 3:01 PM To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER: URS Practitioners Sub Team Meeting Doodle Poll Dear all, This is a reminder. Per item 2d below, staff has initiated a Doodle to schedule a meeting of the URS Practitioners Sub Team next week to review the results of the URS practitioners survey. As there are already two Sub Team meetings scheduled for Wednesday, we thought we should avoid over-crowding on that day, and instead select times on Tuesday, 12 June and Thursday, 14 June. If none of these times are suitable, staff will suggest other options. Please take the poll at: https://doodle.com/poll/ewemh47uwg66ncax before the end of this week (08 June). Thank you very much for your assistance. 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

2 1