May 2018 - Gnso-rpm-providers

Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
by Ariel Liang May 5, 2018

May 5, 2018

Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

8 19

FOR FINAL REVIEW: Updated List of URS Provider Questions
by Mary Wong May 2, 2018

May 2, 2018

Dear all, Thank you all for your very timely and thoughtful comments, in some cases (like Justine) in very thorough and helpful detail. Please find attached, for what staff hopes is a final review by this Sub Team, an updated List of Consolidated URS Provider Questions. This version reflects what we believe are the most recent agreements within the Sub Team, incorporates new suggested changes from the last version circulated, and for ease of review discards most of the previous redlined text that were either merely typos/formatting, or that reflected “old” comments that have since been resolved or superseded. As you review this version, please note the following: * We have highlighted in yellow those questions in the main text where we believe a Sub Team decision still needs to be made, or that otherwise requires additional clarification; * We have highlighted text in some comment boxes in yellow as well – these generally indicate follow up information which in staff’s belief answers some questions or provides additional context; * In cases where additional staff review – either of the data we compiled for the URS Documents Sub Team or via an initial review of Professor Rebecca Tushnet’s data results – seemed to us to have provided the full answer to a question, we have also highlighted the question in grey as being suggested for DELETION and crossed it out in the main text. Please note that this means, in a few cases, we have not incorporated a Sub Team suggestion to retain a question. We have, however, retracted our previous suggestions for some other deletions where our follow up review of the data seemed to show at best a partial answer to a question. We welcome the Sub Team’s confirmation or correction of these few staff suggestions. We hope this is helpful to you as you review the final proposed list of questions. As mentioned previously, our aim is to send the questions out before the end of the week; as such, it will be greatly appreciated if you can limit any comments to substantive concerns that have not yet been raised previously; or to providing guidance on the remaining questions where the text specifies the need to choose a final formulation; or to correct any errors or omissions on the staff’s part. Please be so kind as to revert by 1200 UTC on Thursday 3 May. Thank you! Cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

2 1

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