- Gnso-rpm-providers - lists.icann.org

Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [Ext] RE: Responses from URS Providers
by Ariel Liang June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Thanks for letting me know Smrithi! Hello Aditya, Thanks for participating in the call today, and answering some of the questions! As you have heard, the Sub Team have some comments/questions to follow up with ADNDRC as well as other Providers. We will circulate at the time the Sub Team deem appropriate. Best Regards, Ariel From: Smrithi Ramesh <smrithi(a)aiac.world> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:14 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Cc: Carrie Shu Shang <cshang(a)hkiac.org>, "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org>, Puneeth Ganapathy <puneeth(a)aiac.world>, Aditya Pratap Singh <aditya(a)aiac.world> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Responses from URS Providers Dear Ariel Yes , will be attending from The Kl office. I have copied my colleagues in as well for your ease of reference Thank you Sent from my iPhone On 13 Jun 2018, at 7:59 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks for letting me know Carrie! Just want to check – is the secretariat member attending the call from the Kuala Lumpur office? Thank you, Ariel From: Carrie Shu Shang <cshang(a)hkiac.org<mailto:cshang@hkiac.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> Cc: Smrithi Ramesh <smrithi(a)aiac.world<mailto:smrithi@aiac.world>> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Responses from URS Providers Dear Ariel/All, Apologize and it looks like my earlier message didn't go though. I will not be able to join the meeting tonight but at least one member from the ADNDRC-Secretariat will participate in the meeting. We have received the consolidated files and thanks for the arrangement. Regards, -Carrie From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 8:20 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Responses from URS Providers Dear Providers Sub Team members, In preparation for tomorrow’s Sub Team call at 12:00 UTC, please find attached the compilation of responses from URS Providers to the questions from the Sub Team. All Providers have submitted their responses on time by the set deadline. Please note that ADNDRC and MFSD responded to all questions; FORUM responded to most questions, and they hope to provide responses to the 20 remaining questions prior to ICANN62. You may have noticed the color coding in the spreadsheet: * Light orange cell: questions sent to the Providers * Dark orange cell: responses that include attachments (links to the attachments are on the last page of the spreadsheet) * Bright yellow cell: remaining questions that FORUM aim to answer before ICANN62 Furthermore, Prof. Rebecca Tushnet provided written input to some of the questions staff identified previously, as we thought these questions may be answered or partially answered by her research data. You may find Prof. Tushnet’s comments in the last column of the spreadsheet (titled “Additional Notes”). As mentioned in the previous email, Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability tomorrow, so it is likely she would not be able to join the call. If you would like to review the individual responses from Providers and their attachments, as well as Prof. Tushnet’s written input separately, you may scroll to the bottom of this wiki page to find the documents: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> The proposed agenda for tomorrow’s meeting is as follows: 1. Review agenda 2. Begin reviewing the responses from URS Providers and considering how best to use the relevant URS data 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:31 PM 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: URS Providers Sub Team on 13 June 12:00 UTC Dear Providers Sub Team members, Please note that per item 2a below, a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 12:00 UTC for 90 minutes for the URS Providers Sub Team to review the Provider survey results, as well as the research of Prof. Tushnet. With respect to the first task, staff will send the survey results to the Sub Team on 11 or 12 June after compiling the responses from the three Providers. With respect to the second task, as Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability on 13 June, staff thought it may be more efficient if she could provide written input to the seven (7) questions sent to the Providers (please see attachment). Through staff’s initial review of the data, we identified these questions that may be answered or partially answered by Prof. Tushnet’s research. Staff have communicated to Prof. Tushnet our view that the Sub Team would likely need relevant data from her research that may provide insight into these questions. If she could provide her written input, staff will circulate it to the Sub Team, and the Sub Team could spend some time during the meeting on 13 June to review, in conjunction with the survey results. Kind regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: 1. Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. * Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list * After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis 1. Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: * Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC * Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC * Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. * Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. * Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. 1. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. 1. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): 1. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results 2. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results 3. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [Ext] RE: Responses from URS Providers
by Ariel Liang June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Thanks for letting me know Carrie! Just want to check – is the secretariat member attending the call from the Kuala Lumpur office? Thank you, Ariel From: Carrie Shu Shang <cshang(a)hkiac.org> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Cc: Smrithi Ramesh <smrithi(a)aiac.world> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Responses from URS Providers Dear Ariel/All, Apologize and it looks like my earlier message didn't go though. I will not be able to join the meeting tonight but at least one member from the ADNDRC-Secretariat will participate in the meeting. We have received the consolidated files and thanks for the arrangement. Regards, -Carrie From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 8:20 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Responses from URS Providers Dear Providers Sub Team members, In preparation for tomorrow’s Sub Team call at 12:00 UTC, please find attached the compilation of responses from URS Providers to the questions from the Sub Team. All Providers have submitted their responses on time by the set deadline. Please note that ADNDRC and MFSD responded to all questions; FORUM responded to most questions, and they hope to provide responses to the 20 remaining questions prior to ICANN62. You may have noticed the color coding in the spreadsheet: * Light orange cell: questions sent to the Providers * Dark orange cell: responses that include attachments (links to the attachments are on the last page of the spreadsheet) * Bright yellow cell: remaining questions that FORUM aim to answer before ICANN62 Furthermore, Prof. Rebecca Tushnet provided written input to some of the questions staff identified previously, as we thought these questions may be answered or partially answered by her research data. You may find Prof. Tushnet’s comments in the last column of the spreadsheet (titled “Additional Notes”). As mentioned in the previous email, Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability tomorrow, so it is likely she would not be able to join the call. If you would like to review the individual responses from Providers and their attachments, as well as Prof. Tushnet’s written input separately, you may scroll to the bottom of this wiki page to find the documents: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> The proposed agenda for tomorrow’s meeting is as follows: 1. Review agenda 2. Begin reviewing the responses from URS Providers and considering how best to use the relevant URS data 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:31 PM 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: URS Providers Sub Team on 13 June 12:00 UTC Dear Providers Sub Team members, Please note that per item 2a below, a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 12:00 UTC for 90 minutes for the URS Providers Sub Team to review the Provider survey results, as well as the research of Prof. Tushnet. With respect to the first task, staff will send the survey results to the Sub Team on 11 or 12 June after compiling the responses from the three Providers. With respect to the second task, as Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability on 13 June, staff thought it may be more efficient if she could provide written input to the seven (7) questions sent to the Providers (please see attachment). Through staff’s initial review of the data, we identified these questions that may be answered or partially answered by Prof. Tushnet’s research. Staff have communicated to Prof. Tushnet our view that the Sub Team would likely need relevant data from her research that may provide insight into these questions. If she could provide her written input, staff will circulate it to the Sub Team, and the Sub Team could spend some time during the meeting on 13 June to review, in conjunction with the survey results. Kind regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: 1. Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. * Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list * After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis 1. Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: * Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC * Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC * Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. * Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. * Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. 1. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. 1. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): 1. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results 2. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results 3. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

Responses from URS Providers
by Ariel Liang June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team members, In preparation for tomorrow’s Sub Team call at 12:00 UTC, please find attached the compilation of responses from URS Providers to the questions from the Sub Team. All Providers have submitted their responses on time by the set deadline. Please note that ADNDRC and MFSD responded to all questions; FORUM responded to most questions, and they hope to provide responses to the 20 remaining questions prior to ICANN62. You may have noticed the color coding in the spreadsheet: * Light orange cell: questions sent to the Providers * Dark orange cell: responses that include attachments (links to the attachments are on the last page of the spreadsheet) * Bright yellow cell: remaining questions that FORUM aim to answer before ICANN62 Furthermore, Prof. Rebecca Tushnet provided written input to some of the questions staff identified previously, as we thought these questions may be answered or partially answered by her research data. You may find Prof. Tushnet’s comments in the last column of the spreadsheet (titled “Additional Notes”). As mentioned in the previous email, Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability tomorrow, so it is likely she would not be able to join the call. If you would like to review the individual responses from Providers and their attachments, as well as Prof. Tushnet’s written input separately, you may scroll to the bottom of this wiki page to find the documents: https://community.icann.org/x/FBu8B The proposed agenda for tomorrow’s meeting is as follows: 1. Review agenda 2. Begin reviewing the responses from URS Providers and considering how best to use the relevant URS data 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:31 PM To: "gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers(a)icann.org> Subject: URS Providers Sub Team on 13 June 12:00 UTC Dear Providers Sub Team members, Please note that per item 2a below, a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 12:00 UTC for 90 minutes for the URS Providers Sub Team to review the Provider survey results, as well as the research of Prof. Tushnet. With respect to the first task, staff will send the survey results to the Sub Team on 11 or 12 June after compiling the responses from the three Providers. With respect to the second task, as Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability on 13 June, staff thought it may be more efficient if she could provide written input to the seven (7) questions sent to the Providers (please see attachment). Through staff’s initial review of the data, we identified these questions that may be answered or partially answered by Prof. Tushnet’s research. Staff have communicated to Prof. Tushnet our view that the Sub Team would likely need relevant data from her research that may provide insight into these questions. If she could provide her written input, staff will circulate it to the Sub Team, and the Sub Team could spend some time during the meeting on 13 June to review, in conjunction with the survey results. Kind regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: 1. Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. * Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list * After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis 1. Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: * Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC * Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC * Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. * Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. * Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. 1. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. 1. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): 1. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results 2. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results 3. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

2 1

URS Providers Sub Team on 13 June 12:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

Dear Providers Sub Team members, Please note that per item 2a below, a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 12:00 UTC for 90 minutes for the URS Providers Sub Team to review the Provider survey results, as well as the research of Prof. Tushnet. With respect to the first task, staff will send the survey results to the Sub Team on 11 or 12 June after compiling the responses from the three Providers. With respect to the second task, as Prof. Tushnet has very limited availability on 13 June, staff thought it may be more efficient if she could provide written input to the seven (7) questions sent to the Providers (please see attachment). Through staff’s initial review of the data, we identified these questions that may be answered or partially answered by Prof. Tushnet’s research. Staff have communicated to Prof. Tushnet our view that the Sub Team would likely need relevant data from her research that may provide insight into these questions. If she could provide her written input, staff will circulate it to the Sub Team, and the Sub Team could spend some time during the meeting on 13 June to review, in conjunction with the survey results. Kind regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: 1. Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. * Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list * After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis 1. Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: * Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC * Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC * Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. * Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. * Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. 1. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. 1. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): 1. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results 2. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results 3. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

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

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