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

Proposed Agenda - Providers Sub Team Call Wed 11 April
by Ariel Liang April 12, 2018

April 12, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team, Kindly review the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s call (Wednesday, 11 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC): 1. Finalize all proposed questions for URS Providers 2. Next Steps Staff is also recirculating the consolidated questions for Providers (two documents): 1. Questions Only: This document provides a clean list of all questions proposed/already asked so far. You may comment and suggest edits to the questions via the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnT… (PDF version is attached). 1. With Responses & References: This document lists not only all questions (Column B - same as the ones on the “Questions Only” document), but also includes responses already received from URS Providers, as well as references to Supplemental Rules and staff notes. The document is view only. Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v… (PDF version attached). After Phil finishes editing the proposed questions, staff will update the two Google Docs and circulate the updated PDF files. As a gentle reminder, due to other simultaneous calls that will be using WebEx teleconference room (only two available for the GNSO), tomorrow’s meeting would be audio only. Kindly refer to the dial in details in the email/calendar invite previously sent by the GNSO Secretariat. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

5 11

Recording and Attendance / RPM Sub Team for URS Providers call on Wednesday, 11 April 2018
by Julie Bisland April 11, 2018

April 11, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance of the call attached, and the mp3 link below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Sub Team for URS Providers call held Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC. MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-providers-11apr18-en.mp3 Attendance and recordings of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/gYH3B The recording of the call is posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie Julie Bisland Secretariat Operations Coordinator for the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_g…>

1 0

Action Items & Notes - Provider Sub Team Meeting Wed 11 April
by Ariel Liang April 11, 2018

April 11, 2018

Dear All, Kindly find below the action items and notes captured in today’s call. They have been published on the meeting wiki page, along with call recordings and attendance record: https://community.icann.org/x/gYH3B. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Action Items: 1. Sub Team members to suggest additional edits, as well as additional questions related to the ADNDRC and MSFD Supplemental Rules, directly on the Google Document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnT…> by Monday, 16 April at 23:59 UTC and inform others to review via the mailing list when edits are added. Staff to convert a clean version of the Google Doc, incorporating all edits/comments as is, and forward to the full WG on Tuesday, 17 April. 2. Staff to incorporate suggestions/edits discussed in the meeting on the Google Doc [DONE] 3. Staff to insert the already received responses to Provider questions in the Google Doc; Sub Team to evaluate whether these questions should be struck, or need to be asked differently to gain further clarification. 4. Phil, Lori, and Susan to refine the questions related to GDPR impact and consider whether a new section needs to be added: * The Complaint (Q3): Have you encountered any issues receiving WHOIS info needed for URS proceedings when dealing with Complaints against Registrants due to privacy laws/regulations? If so, what are the countries/nations of these Registrants? * The Complaint (Q13): How will the URS rules pertaining to cases involving domains utilizing privacy or proxy services be affected if full access to WHOIS data is no longer publicly available due to GDPR implementation? What WHOIS data elements do you require to perform your role as a URS dispute resolution provider? * Others (Q1): Do you envision any difficulty complying with the provisions related to WHOIS contained in the URS Rules, Procedure, Technical Requirements, and your own Supplemental Rules, upon the 25 May 2018 effective date of GDPR enforcement? 5. Justine to redraft the following question: * Examiner Determination (Q6): (To FORUM and MFSD) How do FORUM and MFSD compel their Examiners to comply with their such templates in writing their determinations or guidelines? Noting previous remarks that the quality of determinations vary from Examiner to Examiner. 6. Sub Team to table Michael K’s suggestion to Examiner (Q1) for further discussion with the full WG: “I would appreciate if we could dig a little deeper into Q1 under examiners, specifically to look into what (if any) proportion of the Examiners have experience representing the registrant side, or if they tend to mostly have a background representing trademark holders.” Notes: * Communications (Q4): Staff to reword the question in a positive manner * Communications (Q6): Staff to add reference to URS Rules 2(f) * The Complaint (Q3): Don’t limit the question within the scope of EU nations, as there are privacy laws in other countries. The question should be territory neutral. Perhaps add a question asking “If so, what are the countries/nations of these Registrants?” * The Complaint (Q8): Add “How do you find this information?” * The Complaint (Q12): Drop the explanatory notes within the brackets; add the third part of the question: “Are you able to determine whether the mistake was due to Complainant error, or a WHOIS inaccuracy? If so, please share with us your analysis.” * The Complaint (Q13): GDPR is going to impact domains not registered via P/P services as well. An additional, overarching question may need to be asked: “How would you perceive the URS related rules and procedures change after GDPR goes into effect?” ACTION: Phil, Lori, and Susan to reconsider wording this question, as well as Q3 under The Complaint and Q1 under Others; staff to remove these three questions from the Google Doc. * Fees (Q1): Drop the question “What are your filing fees for Complainants and Respondents (where applicable)?” as it has been answered in Providers’ Supplemental Rules. * Administrative Review (Q1): Direct the question only to FORUM as the other two Providers have answered it * Administrative Review (Q2): Drop the question as it has been answered by all three Providers * Examiners (Q1): Michael K’s suggestion seems unanswerable by the Providers. Table the discussion till when the full WG reviews the suggested questions. * Examiner Determination (Q6): ACTION: Justine to reword and clarify the question.

1 0

Consolidated List of Proposed Questions to URS Providers
by Ariel Liang April 6, 2018

April 6, 2018

Dear All, Following up on Phil’s email and action items, staff is circulating the consolidated list of proposed questions to URS Providers, including the additional questions pertaining to Technical Requirements and Supplemental Rules captured on Wednesday’s meeting and sent by Justine Chew to the mailing list. To facilitate editing and finalization of the questions, staff developed two documents: 1. Questions Only: This document provides a clean list of all questions proposed/already asked so far. You may comment and suggest edits to the questions via the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnT… (PDF version is attached). 1. With Responses & References: This document lists not only all questions (Column B - same as the ones on the “Questions Only” document), but also includes responses already received from URS Providers, as well as references to Supplemental Rules and staff notes. The document is view only. Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v… (PDF version attached). The structure and order of the questions on both documents are exactly the same. Staff hopes it would not be too cumbersome for the Sub Team to cross reference in order to refine and narrow down the proposed questions. If more questions related to the Supplemental Rules are sent to the mailing list by COB today (Friday, 6 April), staff will add them to both documents. Other research & working documents, including the mapping document of URS Rules/Procedures/Supplemental Rules, can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B Thank you, and have a great weekend! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 4:25 PM To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org>, "ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Meeting Invite / RPM Sub Team for URS Providers / 11 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC Sub-team members: Thanks for a very productive call yesterday. In preparation for our call of 4/11, please look over the MFSD and ADNDRC Supplemental Rules and identify any provisions that you think raise new questions or are inconsistent with the URS Rules/Procedures and forward those to the email list. Our main objective for our final sub-team call next week will be to review the questions generated by our prior calls and agree on final text before sharing them with the full WG. I’m asking staff to please circulate an updated list of those questions that includes those from yesterday’s call. I’ll be reviewing that with an aye toward tightening and clarification, but other sub-team members should feel free to do so as well. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 11:19 AM To: ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers] Meeting Invite / RPM Sub Team for URS Providers / 11 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC Dear all, The call for the RPM Sub Team for URS Providers: To develop and review questions for the URS providers will take place on Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 19:00 Paris CEST, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Thursday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 03:00 Melbourne AEST Please check on the link below to make sure you have the right meeting time. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y8u44mgf[tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y8u44mgf&d…> For meeting documents and agenda, see agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/gYH3B[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> ***Due to other simultaneous calls that will be using WebEx teleconference room, this meeting will be audio only*** If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. With kind regards, Julie **Audio phone numbers/passcode below** Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: PROVIDERS For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL RIO DE JANEIRO: 55-21-40421490 0800-7610651 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

1 0

FW: Meeting Invite / RPM Sub Team for URS Providers / 11 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC
by Corwin, Philip April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

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

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Providers Sub Team Call: Questions on Supplemental Rules and High Level Technical Requirements
by Justine Chew April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

Dear colleagues, My apologies for having to miss the call later, it's getting rather late where I am. In the interim, I had a handful of questions to raise (noting that some may be already contained in any one of the pools of information that staff is compiling and sorting):- *(1) Supplemental Rules* *Generally* - Do the providers undertake their own internal reviews of their Supplemental Rules and if yes, how often, and have they found a need to tighten or provide greater clarity on their Rules in any way? *Annexes to Complaints, in particular SMD* - Clause 4(i) - how does the Forum handle the submission (through its online complaint filing site) of a relevant SMD proof of use from the TMCH which is expressly provided for in the Rules clause 3(b)(v)? An SMD is typically a file with the extension .smd and such format is not expressly provided for under the Forum's Annex A. As comparison, MFSD's Supplementary Rules Clause 3 expressly specifies acceptance of .smd file as an annex. - Does ADNDRC's electronic complaint form (Form C_URS) also allow the uploading of .smd files as MFSD? *Communication* (one that Phil had picked up on last week) - How is ADNDRC not in breach of the Rules Clause 2(a)(i) Procedures Clause 4.3 in relying SOLELY on email as the mode for issuing a Notice of Complaint? *Impartiality and Independence of Examiners* - Do all 3 providers undertake independent inquiries to adequately satisfy themselves as to the impartiality and independence of their Examiners or do they merely rely on the oath or declaration made by each Examiner? - Has there been any incidences of allegations of partiality or non-independence or biasedness of an Examiner being raised by any party of an URS proceeding either during the initial determination process or as ground for a review or appeal? - Has ADNDRC experienced an event where an Examiner refused or failed to act per its Supplementary Rules Article 8.4? What motivated ADNDRC to include that Article 8.4? *Determinations* - Both the Forum and MFSD provide a template or guidelines to their Examiners in writing a determination. Doe ADNDRC do the same? - How do Forum and MFSD compel their Examiners to comply with such template or guidelines? (Noting previous remarks that the quality of determinations vary from Examiner to Examiner) Also questions around the selection, qualifications and training of Examiners which I recall have been adequately raised elsewhere. *(2) High Level Technical Requirements* - Clause 5, Registrar Requirement 2: what does "a normal domain name lifecycle" mean? In concluding, I am looking forward to reviewing the full list of proposed questions, and will be happy to assist in an onward 'wordsmith-ing' effort of those questions, where necessary. Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On 4 April 2018 at 01:37, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Following up on the staff action items from last week’s call, please be so > kind to find attached a document that contains: > > > > - *Consolidated proposed questions for Providers* -- including > questions: 1) pertaining to URS Rules, Procedures, and MoU; 2) from the > Document Sub Team; 3) asked during the ICANN61 Providers’ presentation. > Duplicated/repetitive questions have been either removed or combined > - *Responses already received from Providers* during their ICANN61 > presentation -- slides > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/URS%20Providers%2…>, > transcript > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Transcription%20I…>, > Q&A excerpt > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Q%26A%20with%20UR…> > - *Additional written responses from ADNDRC* -- document > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Additional%20Writ…> > sent by Carri Shang to staff following the ICANN61 presentation > - *References to relevant Supplemental Rules *to answer certain > questions > - *Additional Notes *– staff research as per Sub Team requests > > > > Google Doc version can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/ > spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg/ > edit?usp=sharing > > > > Among the 90+ proposed questions, around half already have certain form of > responses/answers. Staff hope this document would help the Sub Team further > refine, edit, and narrow down the list of questions for the Providers. > > > > Please see below the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s call (*Wednesday, 4 > April at 17:00-18:30 UTC*). > > 1. Sub Team continue reviewing and developing objective questions with > regard to Providers’ Supplemental Rules and High Level Technical > Requirements > 2. Sub Team begin to edit/finalize all proposed questions > 3. Next steps/next meeting > > > > All relevant documents have been uploaded on the meeting’s wiki page > <https://community.icann.org/x/QoLpB>. As a gentle reminder, please > review the Supplemental Rules and Technical Requirements before tomorrow’s > meeting (you may use the Mapping Document for more efficient review). > > > > *IMPORTANT* > > *Adobe Connect will not be available for the call.* Kindly note the > instruction sent by GNSO Secretariat below. The ICANN developed guide for > using the alternative teleconference platform is attached. > > > > Thank you, > > Ariel > > > > *Ariel Xinyue Liang* > > Policy Analyst | Washington, DC > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > >

2 2

Actions and Notes: URS Providers Call 04 April 2018
by Ariel Liang April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the actions and notes from today’s call. They have been posted on the meeting wiki page, along with the call recording, chat, and attendance record: https://community.icann.org/x/QoLpB. For next week’s call (Wednesday, 11 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC), due to other simultaneous calls that will be using WebEx teleconference room (only two available for the GNSO), it would be audio only. GNSO Secretariat will follow up with dial in details in the call invitation. Staff will make relevant documents available via Google Doc and wiki to facilitate the discussion. Please let us know if you have any question/concern. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS: 1. Sub Team to review the Supplemental Rules of ADNDRC and MFSD and raise any additional questions on the Sub Team mailing list by Friday, 06 April. 2. Staff to consolidate all proposed questions, including the additional ones raised by Sub Team members on the mailing list by COB Friday, 06 April. 3. Phil Corwin to complete the initial editing/refinement of the proposed questions and share them with the Sub Team by Tuesday, 10 April. 4. Sub Team to finalize proposed questions during next week’s call on Wednesday, 11 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC. 5. Staff to check the definition of “Rollback” (DONE – please see below) (page 2 of Technical Requirements document) Non-URS State (URS Rollback): This is the state of a domain name that is not under either URS Lock or URS Suspension. If the domain name is in URS Lock or URS Suspension, and if the URS Provider requests that the domain name be transitioned to a Non-URS State, the Registry Operator MUST restore the original information of the domain name. The reversion of a domain name to a Non-URS State is referred to as a URS Rollback. · Note: The Registry Operator MUST update the domain name to set the NS and DS information that was originally present in the domain name before the URS Suspension. If glue records were removed when the Registry Operator activated the URS Suspension, the Registry Operator MUST restore the required glue records. NOTES: 1. Technical Requirements (Questions to Providers) * Registry Requirement 2: Have Providers experienced any difficulties having the URS Lock activated on the disputed domain name within 24 hours after sending the request to Registry Operators? * Registry Requirement 5: Have Providers gotten notifications from Registry Operators via email regarding the completion of URS actions on a domain name? * Registry Requirement 6: Have Providers gotten notification via email from Registry Operator if a URS Locked or URS Suspended domain name has been either deleted or purged? * Registry Requirement 7: Have Providers gotten information from ICANN with regard to the point of contact of BERO appointed by Registry Operators? * Registry Requirement 10: * Do Providers know any cases that Registry Operators refused to offer the option for URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name’s registration for an additional year? * Why during the one additional year of URS Suspension, the domain name must remain registered to the Registrant, instead of the successful Complainant? * To implement this provision, there seem to be eligibility restrictions for TLDs. Why the inconsistency? * General Questions: * Do Providers envision any difficulty complying with the provisions related to WHOIS in the URS Rules, Procedure, Technical Requirements, and Supplemental Rules, given the uncertainly related to GDPR that goes into effect after 25 May 2018? * Do Providers have any difficulties complying with the highly technical requirements (e.g., PGP Keys, etc.)? * Questions to Other Stakeholders * [Registry Operators] Registry Requirement 5: If URS Suspension is activated, should it be optional or mandatory for Registry Operator to notify the Registrars of domain names that may be affected by potential resolution issues of child hosts that depend on the URS Suspended domain name? Would it be a burden to change “MAY” to “MUST” in the provision for sending such notifications? * [ICANN GDD] Registry Requirement 8: Have ICANN received ERSR Waiver requests from Registry Operators? Has this provision been implemented? * [ICANN GDD] Registry-Registrar Agreement: Have Registry Operators modified their Registry-Registrar Agreement to reflect these two requirements? * [ICANN GDD] Registrar Requirement 2: Clarification on this provision is needed. 1. FORUM Supplemental Rules (Questions to Providers) * 4(b): Have Providers encountered any issues when dealing with Registrants from EU nations whose WHOIS info is needed URS proceedings? * 4(c): How will the rules pertaining to privacy or proxy services be affected if full access to WHOIS data is no longer available due to GDPR implementation? * 5(d): * What is the purpose of this provision in the Supplemental Rules? * Has there been any URS case filed against multiple Respondents? (Berry: None – there have been cases where Registrant and Organization are both listed, but they look to be the same). * Have Examiners received requests for separate hearings from the multiple Respondents in the same URS proceeding? * 7(a)(b)(c): Have Providers received joint requests for a Stay of the Administrative Proceeding? If so, was the case reinstated or dismissed as a result of the Stay? Have Providers received any requests for a Stay post appointment of the Examiner? * 10(a): Can Providers provide a copy of the oath taken by the Examiners for being neutral and independent? Is the oath signed by the Examiners? * 10(b): Have any Examiner voluntarily disclosed any conflict of interest? * 10(c): Have any Party filed a request to challenge the selection of an Examiner? If so, how was the conflict of interest discovered? * 10(d): Why the request to challenge the selection of an Examiner must be filed within one (1) Business Day? Have any Party filed a challenge beyond the required time period? Have there been any difficulty to meet the deadline for filing a challenge? * 12: Why the phrase “without prejudice” is used in 12(a) but “with or without prejudice” is used in 12(b)? Why the inconsistency? * 15(b): What is the purpose of this provision? Has any Party requested to include or exclude certain information from a publicly available Determination? If so, how did the Provider act on such request? * 16(d): * How often was a three-member Appeal Panel requested? * To appoint Examiners to the three-member Appeal Panel, did the Providers encounter any difficulties appointing Examiners from each parties’ list to the Panel? * Appendix A: Did any Party submit an individual file in excess 10MB? Did any Party submit electronic case documents in excess of 10MB, in the aggregate, per domain name? 1. Next Steps/Next Meeting * Sub Team members to review the Supplemental Rules of ADNDRC and MFSD and raise questions via the mailing list by Friday, 06 April for incorporation. * Wednesday, 11 April would be the last meeting of the Sub Team; task is to finalize all proposed questions for URS Providers; Phil to take the first stab at editing the questions and send the draft final questions by Tuesday, 10 April. * After questions are finalized and forwarded to the full WG, the Sub Team would be dissolved. * Providers may respond within 30 days after receiving the final questions.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance, & Webex Chat for RPM Sub Team for URS Providers call on Wednesday, 04 April 2018
by Julie Bisland April 4, 2018

April 4, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and Webex Chat transcript attached to this email, and the mp3 link below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Sub Team for URS Providers call held Wednesday, 04 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC. MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-urs-providers-04apr18-en.mp3 Attendance and recordings of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/QoLpB The recording of the call is posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie Julie Bisland Secretariat Operations Coordinator for the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy…>

1 0

Providers Sub Team Call: Consolidated Questions & Proposed Agenda
by Ariel Liang April 3, 2018

April 3, 2018

Dear All, Following up on the staff action items from last week’s call, please be so kind to find attached a document that contains: * Consolidated proposed questions for Providers -- including questions: 1) pertaining to URS Rules, Procedures, and MoU; 2) from the Document Sub Team; 3) asked during the ICANN61 Providers’ presentation. Duplicated/repetitive questions have been either removed or combined * Responses already received from Providers during their ICANN61 presentation -- slides<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/URS%20Providers%2…>, transcript<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Transcription%20I…>, Q&A excerpt<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Q%26A%20with%20UR…> * Additional written responses from ADNDRC -- document<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Additional%20Writ…> sent by Carri Shang to staff following the ICANN61 presentation * References to relevant Supplemental Rules to answer certain questions * Additional Notes – staff research as per Sub Team requests Google Doc version can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1v… Among the 90+ proposed questions, around half already have certain form of responses/answers. Staff hope this document would help the Sub Team further refine, edit, and narrow down the list of questions for the Providers. Please see below the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s call (Wednesday, 4 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC). 1. Sub Team continue reviewing and developing objective questions with regard to Providers’ Supplemental Rules and High Level Technical Requirements 2. Sub Team begin to edit/finalize all proposed questions 3. Next steps/next meeting All relevant documents have been uploaded on the meeting’s wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/QoLpB>. As a gentle reminder, please review the Supplemental Rules and Technical Requirements before tomorrow’s meeting (you may use the Mapping Document for more efficient review). IMPORTANT Adobe Connect will not be available for the call. Kindly note the instruction sent by GNSO Secretariat below. The ICANN developed guide for using the alternative teleconference platform is attached. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: Ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers <ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 9:53 AM To: "ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-rpm-providers] ***REMINDER*** Meeting Invite / RPM Sub Team for URS Providers / 04 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC **Please see new audio phone numbers and passcode below** Dear all, The call for the RPM Sub Team for URS Providers: To develop and review questions for the URS providers will take place on Wednesday, 04 April 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 19:00 Paris CEST, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Thursday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 03:00 Melbourne AEST Please check on the link below to make sure you have the right meeting time. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yd2p2jtt[tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_yd2p2jtt&d…> New Connection Information New Web conference tool: Webex Please join the meeting room here: https://mytrials.webex.com/join/terri.agnew[mytrials.webex.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mytrials.webex.com_joi…> With this access code: 926 506 278 Audio connection: It’s possible to connect via Webex VoIP, but audio quality cannot be guaranteed. We recommend you connect to the audio bridge with your telephone. To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the event, or call the number below and enter the access code. To Join by phone: 1-240-454-0879 USA Toll 1-240-454-0879 USA Toll Global call-in numbers[mytrials.webex.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mytrials.webex.com_cmp…> Access code: 926 506 278 Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/QoLpB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri **New audio phone numbers/passcode below** If you cannot join the WebEx room, join via telephone listed below: Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: PROVIDERS For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL RIO DE JANEIRO: 55-21-40421490 0800-7610651 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

1 0