April 2018 - Gnso-rpm-providers

Please use this UPDATED (FINAL) List of Provider questions (Re: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions)
by Mary Wong May 1, 2018

May 1, 2018

Dear all, With several additional suggestions received after the suggested Friday deadline, staff has produced an UPDATED suggested List of Final Questions for the URS Providers (attached, as previously, as a PDF). You are kindly requested to please provide any concerns or comments you may have to this list by close of business in your time zone on Monday 30 April. For your convenience, the only changes that were made from the last version circulated late on Friday were: * The Complaint, Q3 (Page 2 of the PDF) – Michael Karanicolas had previously suggested an additional sub-question regarding the SMD file that we had inadvertently not included in the Friday version (note that staff has responded with a comment, and we are hoping this can either be verified or corrected by a more knowledgeable WG member). * Examiners, Q15 (Page 8) – In relation to the alternative question about examiner selection proposed by staff, Michael K and Cyntia King have each suggested an alternative, additional sub-question. * Examiner Determination, Q10 (Page 11) – We have updated this question extensively, following Cyntia’s agreement with the latest version proposed by George Kirikos. The document now reflects that updated language. We continue to ask that Sub Team members review the document to ensure that the latest edits capture the WG’s latest agreements, and so that you can provide your thoughts on whether or not to include those questions for which staff believes the providers may already have provided answers or for which staff believes Professor Rebecca Tushnet’s research may provide at least a partial answer. Staff will be confirming what specific data fields Professor Tushnet will have coded this week, so we should be able to send out the final questions to all three providers, assuming the Sub Team signs off, before the end of the week. Thank you. Cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 at 21:05 To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions Dear all, Please find attached the FINAL Consolidated List of Questions for the three URS Providers – final in the sense that, as you’ll recall, we’d asked the Working Group to provide their comments by close of business in their respective time zones today (Friday). Here are some updates to the last document that had been circulated: * Staff has included updated suggestions received on the mailing list up to 23.59 UTC today (Friday) – we note that the most recent discussion took place between Michael Karanicolas and Cyntia King (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002996.html) but as no additional text was suggested we have not incorporated those comments into the document; and * In view of what we understand to be the scope of Rebecca Tushnet’s research on all the URS cases, we have ventured to suggest either updates to or deletions of certain questions. You will find these highlighted in grey in the attachment (note that, as was the case in the last version, questions highlighted in yellow are those where either a provider has noted will require additional time, or that may be covered by other research, or that otherwise staff believed should be called to the Sub Team’s attention. Items highlighted in green represent questions where the Providers may have already provided some answers). To avoid multiple competing versions, we are attaching this final list in PDF format. Please be so kind as to send your comments and suggestions via email to this list no later than close of business in your time zone on Monday 30 April. Following this final review, staff will proceed to send out the list of finalized questions to the three providers as soon as we can, and will advise if we receive any additional clarifying or other questions from any of the providers. Thank you. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:42 To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Updated Redline (version 26 April): Proposed Questions to URS Providers Dear Sub Team, Following yesterday’s WG call, staff have consolidated all comments and suggestions received during and after the call. We will update this document if more comments/suggestions are posted on the WG mailing list by the deadline of Friday, 27 April COB. Please find the redline document attached. 1. Staff would like to draw your attention to the questions below. Do you have any further input/feedback? Questions that have been rephrased The Response: Q11 (by George K) Examiner: Q13 (by staff), Q14 (by George K), Q15 (by Michael K, with an alternative question proposed by staff) Examiner Determination: Q3 (by Brian B), Q10 (by George K) Effect of Court Proceedings: Q1 (by David M) Others: Q3 (by staff) Questions that were suggested to be deleted, or rephrased Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q5 Default: Q1 Examiner Determination: Q8, Q10 Others: Q5 Questions that have received further comments after the WG meeting Examiner: Q3, Q4, Q14, Q15 Remedies: Q3 2. Per Co-Chairs’ requests, staff have highlighted the following questions in yellow that could take longer time to respond in Providers’ view and our view. Comments aside contain rationale/details. Questions that Providers may need longer time to respond (45-60 days) Communications: Q1 The Complaint: Q4 Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q2 The Response: Q1, Q3(A)(B), Q4, Q5, Q10, Q14, Q15 Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1 Examiner: Q8, Q10, Q11 Language: Q2, Q3, Q4 Default: Q2 Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9 Remedies: Q2, Q5 Determinations and Publication: Q3, Q4 Appeal: Q1 Others: Q3, Q4 Question to the Sub Team: When the questions are transmitted to the Providers, should they be separated from the “faster to answer” questions? Does it matter if they stay in the current order? 3. During the call yesterday, Rebecca Tushnet indicated that her research findings of URS decisions will be shared soon. While staff are not completely sure about the categories of information she was collecting, we identified some questions that her research yields may likely provide (partial) answers, especially the questions that may require Providers to review URS Determinations. Our assumption is that Complaints, Responses, and party submissions may not be included in Rebecca’s research. Questions that Rebecca Tushnet’s Research Yields May Provide (Partial) Answers The Complaint: Q4, Q8, Q9, Q10 Fees: Q2 The Response: Q1, Q5, Q12, Q14, Q15 Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1 Examiner: Q8 Language: Q3, Q4 Default: Q2 Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9 Remedies: Q2 Determinations and Publication: Q1, Q3, Q4 Appeal: Q1, Q2 Question to the Sub Team: Assuming Rebecca’s research data will be shared before next Tuesday, should these questions be sent to the Providers AFTER the WG/Sub Team checks Rebecca’s research yields? Alternatively, Rebecca’s research data can be directly forwarded to the Providers once it is ready to share, and Providers can reference the data themselves when formulating responses. Staff will follow up with Rebecca on sharing the data. Welcome your feedback/input on the approach. 4. Staff would like to suggest to include some introductory text at the beginning of the proposed questions. For example: You are only being asked to formulate responses insofar as you have the knowledge or ability to do so as professional URS service Providers. The RPM PDP WG would be grateful to receive your responses by [insert suggested deadline], as the WG aims to discuss your responses during the ICANN62 Meeting. Thank you for your time and kind cooperation. Please share your input/feedback on the introductory text, if any. Thank you for your time and contribution! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

6 9

Updated Redline (version 26 April): Proposed Questions to URS Providers
by Ariel Liang May 1, 2018

May 1, 2018

Dear Sub Team, Following yesterday’s WG call, staff have consolidated all comments and suggestions received during and after the call. We will update this document if more comments/suggestions are posted on the WG mailing list by the deadline of Friday, 27 April COB. Please find the redline document attached. 1. Staff would like to draw your attention to the questions below. Do you have any further input/feedback? Questions that have been rephrased The Response: Q11 (by George K) Examiner: Q13 (by staff), Q14 (by George K), Q15 (by Michael K, with an alternative question proposed by staff) Examiner Determination: Q3 (by Brian B), Q10 (by George K) Effect of Court Proceedings: Q1 (by David M) Others: Q3 (by staff) Questions that were suggested to be deleted, or rephrased Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q5 Default: Q1 Examiner Determination: Q8, Q10 Others: Q5 Questions that have received further comments after the WG meeting Examiner: Q3, Q4, Q14, Q15 Remedies: Q3 2. Per Co-Chairs’ requests, staff have highlighted the following questions in yellow that could take longer time to respond in Providers’ view and our view. Comments aside contain rationale/details. Questions that Providers may need longer time to respond (45-60 days) Communications: Q1 The Complaint: Q4 Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q2 The Response: Q1, Q3(A)(B), Q4, Q5, Q10, Q14, Q15 Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1 Examiner: Q8, Q10, Q11 Language: Q2, Q3, Q4 Default: Q2 Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9 Remedies: Q2, Q5 Determinations and Publication: Q3, Q4 Appeal: Q1 Others: Q3, Q4 Question to the Sub Team: When the questions are transmitted to the Providers, should they be separated from the “faster to answer” questions? Does it matter if they stay in the current order? 3. During the call yesterday, Rebecca Tushnet indicated that her research findings of URS decisions will be shared soon. While staff are not completely sure about the categories of information she was collecting, we identified some questions that her research yields may likely provide (partial) answers, especially the questions that may require Providers to review URS Determinations. Our assumption is that Complaints, Responses, and party submissions may not be included in Rebecca’s research. Questions that Rebecca Tushnet’s Research Yields May Provide (Partial) Answers The Complaint: Q4, Q8, Q9, Q10 Fees: Q2 The Response: Q1, Q5, Q12, Q14, Q15 Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1 Examiner: Q8 Language: Q3, Q4 Default: Q2 Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9 Remedies: Q2 Determinations and Publication: Q1, Q3, Q4 Appeal: Q1, Q2 Question to the Sub Team: Assuming Rebecca’s research data will be shared before next Tuesday, should these questions be sent to the Providers AFTER the WG/Sub Team checks Rebecca’s research yields? Alternatively, Rebecca’s research data can be directly forwarded to the Providers once it is ready to share, and Providers can reference the data themselves when formulating responses. Staff will follow up with Rebecca on sharing the data. Welcome your feedback/input on the approach. 4. Staff would like to suggest to include some introductory text at the beginning of the proposed questions. For example: You are only being asked to formulate responses insofar as you have the knowledge or ability to do so as professional URS service Providers. The RPM PDP WG would be grateful to receive your responses by [insert suggested deadline], as the WG aims to discuss your responses during the ICANN62 Meeting. Thank you for your time and kind cooperation. Please share your input/feedback on the introductory text, if any. Thank you for your time and contribution! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

5 6

Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Please use this UPDATED (FINAL) List of Provider questions (Re: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions)
by Ariel Liang April 30, 2018

April 30, 2018

Hello Carrie, Re Examiner Q2, some of the Examiners listed on the ADNDRC website do not have their resumes/bios linked to their names like other Examiners: https://www.adndrc.org/mten/ListOfPanelists.php (e.g., Ms. Erica Aoki, Mr. Patrick Ballew, Ms. Vivien Chan). The Sub Team/WG wonder why these resumes/bios are not published. Thanks for the feedback re Examiner Q15. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Carrie Shu Shang <cshang(a)hkiac.org> Date: Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:08 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Please use this UPDATED (FINAL) List of Provider questions (Re: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions) Dear Mary, I have only a few comments: Examiner Q2: A bit of clarification needed. I am not entirely clear what it means that qualifications that some of our Examiners are not published? Does that mean that some Examiners have not been able to update their CVs in time? Examiner Q15: The alternative question sounds a bit easier for us to answer (with its current wording). Thanks a lot for the work. -Carrie From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 7:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Please use this UPDATED (FINAL) List of Provider questions (Re: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions) Importance: High Dear all, With several additional suggestions received after the suggested Friday deadline, staff has produced an UPDATED suggested List of Final Questions for the URS Providers (attached, as previously, as a PDF). You are kindly requested to please provide any concerns or comments you may have to this list by close of business in your time zone on Monday 30 April. For your convenience, the only changes that were made from the last version circulated late on Friday were: * The Complaint, Q3 (Page 2 of the PDF) – Michael Karanicolas had previously suggested an additional sub-question regarding the SMD file that we had inadvertently not included in the Friday version (note that staff has responded with a comment, and we are hoping this can either be verified or corrected by a more knowledgeable WG member). * Examiners, Q15 (Page 8) – In relation to the alternative question about examiner selection proposed by staff, Michael K and Cyntia King have each suggested an alternative, additional sub-question. * Examiner Determination, Q10 (Page 11) – We have updated this question extensively, following Cyntia’s agreement with the latest version proposed by George Kirikos. The document now reflects that updated language. We continue to ask that Sub Team members review the document to ensure that the latest edits capture the WG’s latest agreements, and so that you can provide your thoughts on whether or not to include those questions for which staff believes the providers may already have provided answers or for which staff believes Professor Rebecca Tushnet’s research may provide at least a partial answer. Staff will be confirming what specific data fields Professor Tushnet will have coded this week, so we should be able to send out the final questions to all three providers, assuming the Sub Team signs off, before the end of the week. Thank you. Cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 at 21:05 To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> Subject: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions Dear all, Please find attached the FINAL Consolidated List of Questions for the three URS Providers – final in the sense that, as you’ll recall, we’d asked the Working Group to provide their comments by close of business in their respective time zones today (Friday). Here are some updates to the last document that had been circulated: * Staff has included updated suggestions received on the mailing list up to 23.59 UTC today (Friday) – we note that the most recent discussion took place between Michael Karanicolas and Cyntia King (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002996.html) but as no additional text was suggested we have not incorporated those comments into the document; and * In view of what we understand to be the scope of Rebecca Tushnet’s research on all the URS cases, we have ventured to suggest either updates to or deletions of certain questions. You will find these highlighted in grey in the attachment (note that, as was the case in the last version, questions highlighted in yellow are those where either a provider has noted will require additional time, or that may be covered by other research, or that otherwise staff believed should be called to the Sub Team’s attention. Items highlighted in green represent questions where the Providers may have already provided some answers). To avoid multiple competing versions, we are attaching this final list in PDF format. Please be so kind as to send your comments and suggestions via email to this list no later than close of business in your time zone on Monday 30 April. Following this final review, staff will proceed to send out the list of finalized questions to the three providers as soon as we can, and will advise if we receive any additional clarifying or other questions from any of the providers. Thank you. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:42 To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Updated Redline (version 26 April): Proposed Questions to URS Providers Dear Sub Team, Following yesterday’s WG call, staff have consolidated all comments and suggestions received during and after the call. We will update this document if more comments/suggestions are posted on the WG mailing list by the deadline of Friday, 27 April COB. Please find the redline document attached. 1. Staff would like to draw your attention to the questions below. Do you have any further input/feedback? Questions that have been rephrased The Response: Q11 (by George K) Examiner: Q13 (by staff), Q14 (by George K), Q15 (by Michael K, with an alternative question proposed by staff) Examiner Determination: Q3 (by Brian B), Q10 (by George K) Effect of Court Proceedings: Q1 (by David M) Others: Q3 (by staff) Questions that were suggested to be deleted, or rephrased Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q5 Default: Q1 Examiner Determination: Q8, Q10 Others: Q5 Questions that have received further comments after the WG meeting Examiner: Q3, Q4, Q14, Q15 Remedies: Q3 2. Per Co-Chairs’ requests, staff have highlighted the following questions in yellow that could take longer time to respond in Providers’ view and our view. Comments aside contain rationale/details. Questions that Providers may need longer time to respond (45-60 days) Communications: Q1 The Complaint: Q4 Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q2 The Response: Q1, Q3(A)(B), Q4, Q5, Q10, Q14, Q15 Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1 Examiner: Q8, Q10, Q11 Language: Q2, Q3, Q4 Default: Q2 Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9 Remedies: Q2, Q5 Determinations and Publication: Q3, Q4 Appeal: Q1 Others: Q3, Q4 Question to the Sub Team: When the questions are transmitted to the Providers, should they be separated from the “faster to answer” questions? Does it matter if they stay in the current order? 3. During the call yesterday, Rebecca Tushnet indicated that her research findings of URS decisions will be shared soon. While staff are not completely sure about the categories of information she was collecting, we identified some questions that her research yields may likely provide (partial) answers, especially the questions that may require Providers to review URS Determinations. Our assumption is that Complaints, Responses, and party submissions may not be included in Rebecca’s research. Questions that Rebecca Tushnet’s Research Yields May Provide (Partial) Answers The Complaint: Q4, Q8, Q9, Q10 Fees: Q2 The Response: Q1, Q5, Q12, Q14, Q15 Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1 Examiner: Q8 Language: Q3, Q4 Default: Q2 Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9 Remedies: Q2 Determinations and Publication: Q1, Q3, Q4 Appeal: Q1, Q2 Question to the Sub Team: Assuming Rebecca’s research data will be shared before next Tuesday, should these questions be sent to the Providers AFTER the WG/Sub Team checks Rebecca’s research yields? Alternatively, Rebecca’s research data can be directly forwarded to the Providers once it is ready to share, and Providers can reference the data themselves when formulating responses. Staff will follow up with Rebecca on sharing the data. Welcome your feedback/input on the approach. 4. Staff would like to suggest to include some introductory text at the beginning of the proposed questions. For example: You are only being asked to formulate responses insofar as you have the knowledge or ability to do so as professional URS service Providers. The RPM PDP WG would be grateful to receive your responses by [insert suggested deadline], as the WG aims to discuss your responses during the ICANN62 Meeting. Thank you for your time and kind cooperation. Please share your input/feedback on the introductory text, if any. Thank you for your time and contribution! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions
by Mary Wong April 28, 2018

April 28, 2018

Dear all, Please find attached the FINAL Consolidated List of Questions for the three URS Providers – final in the sense that, as you’ll recall, we’d asked the Working Group to provide their comments by close of business in their respective time zones today (Friday). Here are some updates to the last document that had been circulated: * Staff has included updated suggestions received on the mailing list up to 23.59 UTC today (Friday) – we note that the most recent discussion took place between Michael Karanicolas and Cyntia King (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002996.html) but as no additional text was suggested we have not incorporated those comments into the document; and * In view of what we understand to be the scope of Rebecca Tushnet’s research on all the URS cases, we have ventured to suggest either updates to or deletions of certain questions. You will find these highlighted in grey in the attachment (note that, as was the case in the last version, questions highlighted in yellow are those where either a provider has noted will require additional time, or that may be covered by other research, or that otherwise staff believed should be called to the Sub Team’s attention. Items highlighted in green represent questions where the Providers may have already provided some answers). To avoid multiple competing versions, we are attaching this final list in PDF format. Please be so kind as to send your comments and suggestions via email to this list no later than close of business in your time zone on Monday 30 April. Following this final review, staff will proceed to send out the list of finalized questions to the three providers as soon as we can, and will advise if we receive any additional clarifying or other questions from any of the providers. Thank you. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:42 To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Updated Redline (version 26 April): Proposed Questions to URS Providers Dear Sub Team, Following yesterday’s WG call, staff have consolidated all comments and suggestions received during and after the call. We will update this document if more comments/suggestions are posted on the WG mailing list by the deadline of Friday, 27 April COB. Please find the redline document attached. 1. Staff would like to draw your attention to the questions below. Do you have any further input/feedback? Questions that have been rephrased The Response: Q11 (by George K) Examiner: Q13 (by staff), Q14 (by George K), Q15 (by Michael K, with an alternative question proposed by staff) Examiner Determination: Q3 (by Brian B), Q10 (by George K) Effect of Court Proceedings: Q1 (by David M) Others: Q3 (by staff) Questions that were suggested to be deleted, or rephrased Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q5 Default: Q1 Examiner Determination: Q8, Q10 Others: Q5 Questions that have received further comments after the WG meeting Examiner: Q3, Q4, Q14, Q15 Remedies: Q3 2. Per Co-Chairs’ requests, staff have highlighted the following questions in yellow that could take longer time to respond in Providers’ view and our view. Comments aside contain rationale/details. Questions that Providers may need longer time to respond (45-60 days) Communications: Q1 The Complaint: Q4 Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q2 The Response: Q1, Q3(A)(B), Q4, Q5, Q10, Q14, Q15 Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1 Examiner: Q8, Q10, Q11 Language: Q2, Q3, Q4 Default: Q2 Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9 Remedies: Q2, Q5 Determinations and Publication: Q3, Q4 Appeal: Q1 Others: Q3, Q4 Question to the Sub Team: When the questions are transmitted to the Providers, should they be separated from the “faster to answer” questions? Does it matter if they stay in the current order? 3. During the call yesterday, Rebecca Tushnet indicated that her research findings of URS decisions will be shared soon. While staff are not completely sure about the categories of information she was collecting, we identified some questions that her research yields may likely provide (partial) answers, especially the questions that may require Providers to review URS Determinations. Our assumption is that Complaints, Responses, and party submissions may not be included in Rebecca’s research. Questions that Rebecca Tushnet’s Research Yields May Provide (Partial) Answers The Complaint: Q4, Q8, Q9, Q10 Fees: Q2 The Response: Q1, Q5, Q12, Q14, Q15 Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1 Examiner: Q8 Language: Q3, Q4 Default: Q2 Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9 Remedies: Q2 Determinations and Publication: Q1, Q3, Q4 Appeal: Q1, Q2 Question to the Sub Team: Assuming Rebecca’s research data will be shared before next Tuesday, should these questions be sent to the Providers AFTER the WG/Sub Team checks Rebecca’s research yields? Alternatively, Rebecca’s research data can be directly forwarded to the Providers once it is ready to share, and Providers can reference the data themselves when formulating responses. Staff will follow up with Rebecca on sharing the data. Welcome your feedback/input on the approach. 4. Staff would like to suggest to include some introductory text at the beginning of the proposed questions. For example: You are only being asked to formulate responses insofar as you have the knowledge or ability to do so as professional URS service Providers. The RPM PDP WG would be grateful to receive your responses by [insert suggested deadline], as the WG aims to discuss your responses during the ICANN62 Meeting. Thank you for your time and kind cooperation. Please share your input/feedback on the introductory text, if any. Thank you for your time and contribution! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

2 1

Reminder: Comments/Suggestions for Proposed Questions - Feedback by 12:00 UTC Tuesday, 24 April
by Ariel Liang April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Hello everyone, Staff noticed that the deadline for the Sub Team to provide input/feedback was miscommunicated previously - apologies. If you have input/feedback on the new comments/suggestions for the questions to Providers, please be so kind to share them on the mailing list by 12:00 UTC on Tuesday, 24 April. This will give the full WG sufficient time to review before the meeting on Wednesday. For your convenience of viewing, the questions that received comments/suggestions are: * Communications: Q4, Q5, Q6 (additional question) * The Complaint: Q4 * Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q5 * The Response: Q1, Q4, Q11, Q14, Q15 * Examiner: Q12 (additional questions – please note that Providers have already responded to Q12c), Q13 (additional question) * Language: Q4 * In-Person Hearings: Q1 * Default: Q1, Q2, Q3 * Examiner Determination: Q3, Q6, Q8, Q10 (additional question) * Remedies: Q4, Q5, Q6 (additional question) * Effect of Court Proceedings: Q1 * Others: Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7 (additional question) Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

2 2

Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
by Justine Chew April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Dear Sub-team colleagues, Ariel, I have spotted a couple of typographical errors which ought to be corrected:- *Under Examiner* 6, Do you undertake any independent inquiries to adequately satisfy yourself *of your Examiners' impartiality and independence*? Or do you rely solely upon the oath or declaration made by each Examiner? 7. (To FORUM and MFSD) Has any of your Examiner*s* voluntarily disclose*d* any conflict of interest? If not, then what action was taken upon discovery of any conflict? If a conflict was disclosed, did the Examiner do this before and/or during the case proceeding? Thanks, Justine ----- On 18 April 2018 at 00:14, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> wrote: > [Message sent on behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs] > > > > Dear WG members: > > > > Please find attached documents generated by the Sub Teams on > Practitioners, and on Providers. There is a short description of each > document below. These documents will be the presented by the Sub Team > Chairs and serve as the main focus of our discussion on tomorrow’s WG call > (Wed, 18 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC), with an aim to approving final versions > expeditiously so that they can be sent out and responded to as soon as > possible. > > > > *Providers Sub Team:* > > *1. Consolidated Questions to URS Providers* > > *2. Responses to Propose Questions to URS Providers: * > > -- The document includes responses already received from Providers during > ICANN61 presentation and follow-up emails, as well as responses provided by > staff research per Sub Team requests; > > -- Questions partially responded by Providers are also included in the > document to show why these questions are directed to specific Provider(s) > > > > *Practitioners Sub Team:* *URS Practitioner Background Experience and > Perspective* > > > > Considerable work has gone into these documents and we thank the Sub Teams > for their time, effort and care. As Co-Chairs, we urge that edits be > proposed with great care, as balances were carefully considered by the Sub > Teams. > > > > A separate URS Documents Sub Team Summary Report being edited by Brian > Beckham will be provided shortly. Time-allowing, we will consider this > Summary Report tomorrow, otherwise, on 4/25. > > > > Best to all, > > Philip & Kathy > > > > *From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie > Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> > *Date: *Friday, April 13, 2018 at 2:20 PM > *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 > April 2018 at 1700 UTC > > > > Dear RPM PDP WG members, > > > > Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 18 April > 2018, scheduled for 1700 UTC: > > > > Proposed Agenda: > > 1. Roll call (via WebEx and phone bridge only); updates to Statements > of Interest > 2. Status reports - with specific recommendations for next steps and > timeline - from the three URS Sub Teams (Documents, Practitioners, > Providers) > 3. Discussion/agreement on next steps for the three URS Sub Teams in > view of the current Phase One timeline > 4. Notice of agenda for 25 April meeting > > > > Best regards, > > Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >

3 9

Comments/Suggestions for Proposed Questions to URS Providers - Feedback by Mon, 23 April
by Ariel Liang April 21, 2018

April 21, 2018

Dear All, Please be so kind to find attached the comments/suggestions for the proposed questions to URS Providers for your consideration. They are incorporated in the Word file attached as redline. For your convenience of viewing, the questions that received comments/suggestions are: * Communications: Q4, Q5, Q6 (additional question) * The Complaint: Q4 * Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q5 * The Response: Q1, Q4, Q11, Q14, Q15 * Examiner: Q12 (additional questions – please note that Providers have already responded to Q12c) * Language: Q4 * In-Person Hearings: Q1 * Default: Q1, Q2, Q3 * Examiner Determination: Q3, Q6, Q8, Q10 (additional question) * Remedies: Q4, Q5, Q6 (additional question) * Effect of Court Proceedings: Q1 * Others: Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7 (additional question) Please be so kind to review and provide your input/feedback on whether and how to incorporate these new comments/suggestions by Monday, 23 April. Thank you, and have a great weekend! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

3 3

GDD Responses to Questions About URS High Level Technical Requires
by Ariel Liang April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

Hello everyone, During the 04 April call when the Sub Team was reviewing the URS High Level Technical Requirements, a few questions were proposed targeting the ICANN GDD. Staff contacted the GDD colleagues and received the following responses. Hope it is helpful. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 1. Registry Requirement 8: Have ICANN received ERSR Waiver requests from Registry Operators? Has this provision been implemented? Registry Requirement 8: Following the activation of a URS Lock or, if applicable, URS Suspension on a domain name, if the Registry Operator in its good faith belief concludes that the activation of URS Suspension on the domain name is likely to create a present or imminent security incident to the TLD or the DNS (e.g. indirect effects on a significant number of domain names related to possible child hosts that would result in resolution issues after activating the URS Suspension), the Registry Operator MAY submit an “Expedited Registry Security Request” to ICANN requesting that ICANN grant the Registry Operator a waiver from compliance with these Technical Requirements in order to deactivate the URS Lock or URS Suspension on the domain name (“ERSR Waiver”). ICANN will promptly engage all parties related to the ERSR Waiver on a case by case basis to reach a final resolution to the concerns that led to the Registry Operator’s ERSR Waiver request. GDD Response: Yes, Registry Operators have requested ERSR waivers via ICANN’s Naming Services portal. After an ERSR request is submitted, the Security Response Team reviews and considers the ERSR in collaboration with the affected registry. While the details are confidential, in most cases ICANN org has granted a waiver from compliance with a specific provision of the Registry Agreement for the time period necessary to respond to the incident. For more information on the steps that are taken, please see: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ersr-2012-02-25-en 1. Registry-Registrar Agreement: Have Registry Operators modified their Registry-Registrar Agreement to reflect these two requirements? The Registry Operator MUST specify in the Registry-Registrar Agreement for the Registry Operator’s TLD that the Registrar MUST accept and process payments for the renewal of a domain name by a URS Complainant in cases where the URS Complainant prevailed. The Registry Operator MUST specify in the Registry-Registrar Agreement for the Registry Operator’s TLD that the Registrar MUST NOT renew a domain name to a URS Complainant who prevailed for longer than one year (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD). GDD Response: Per the new gTLD Registry Agreement Specification 7, Registry Operators must comply with the URS mechanism. ICANN does not require ROs to provide their RRA to ICANN. When there is an RRA amendment, the RO is required to obtain ICANN approval for the amendments. For more information on the Procedure, see: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rra-amendment-procedure-2015-04-06-en. The ROs submit the RRA amendment approval request via ICANN’s Naming Services portal. [Staff note]: While ICANN GDD does not know 100% whether ROs have included in their RRA those two requirements (as ICANN does not require ROs to provide their RRAs), but since ROs must comply with the URS mechanisms, and the two requirements are explicitly stated in the URS High Level Technical Requirements, it is a high likelihood that ROs have included in their RRAs these requirements. 1. Registrar Requirement 2: Could GDD provide clarification on how they interpret this provision? Registrar Requirement 2: Registrar MUST follow the normal domain name lifecycle for a URS Locked domain name. If the domain name registrant elects to renew, elected to auto-renew or restore the domain name registration, Registrar MAY accept such renewal and/or restoration (if the Registry Operator implements RGP). GDD Response: The Registrar may accept the registrant’s renewal and/or restoration of the locked domain name. * If registrant elected to renew – during Auto-Renew Grace Period * If registrant elected to auto-renew – before domain name expires * If registrant elected to restore the domain name registration – during the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) For more information on the domain name lifecycle, please see: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-lifecycle-2012-02-25-en & Registry Requirement 9 in the URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars:https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/tech-requirements-1…

1 0

Consolidated Questions to URS Providers & Responses Spreadsheet
by Ariel Liang April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

Hello everyone, Since there are no new comments/edits on the Google Doc and no objection to the staff suggestions for trimming the questions, staff has produced two documents that can be shared with the full WG. Please find attached: 1. Consolidated Questions to URS Providers * All suggested edits have been incorporated as is; * Questions answered by all Providers/targeted Provider(s) are removed; * Questions answered by staff research are removed. 1. Responses to Propose Questions to URS Providers * Includes responses already received from Providers during ICANN61 presentation, follow-up emails, and staff research results; * Questions that one or two Providers have responded are also included in the document -- in this way, the full WG would understand why certain questions are directed to specific Provider(s). Thank you very much for your time and contributions! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Review Responses to Proposed Questions to Providers
by Ariel Liang April 16, 2018

April 16, 2018

Dear All, Per action item, staff has included 1) responses from Providers received at ICANN61 & follow-up email, 2) Providers’ Supplemental Rules, and 3) staff research result, in the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnT…. This information may answer or partially answer some of the proposed questions (with highlights in green on the questions’ numbers): * Communications: Q2, Q4 * The Complaint: Q1, Q6, Q7, Q12 * Administrative Review: Q1, Q2 * Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q4 * The Response: Q1, Q8, Q15A, Q19 * Examiner: Q1, Q2, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q10, Q11, Q13, Q16 * Language: Q1, Q3, Q5 * Examiner Determination: Q5 (first bullet point) * Determinations and Publication: Q1, Q2, Q3 * Abusive Complaints: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q5, Q6 * Appeal: Q1, Q4 * Others: Q8, Q9, Q10 As discussed during the Sub Team call, please be so kind to review these responses and suggest whether any of these questions should be struck (responses are satisfactory), or revised in order gain further clarification from the Providers. The Google Doc will remain open till Monday, 16 April at 23:59 UTC. If the Sub Team decide to strike any of these questions, the questions themselves and their respective responses will still be kept in this table<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v…> for record keeping. Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

2 4