Dear colleagues, Mary, Thanks, Mary and Ariel, for working to update the copy. Here are my final comments to Proposed Final List of Questions to URS Providers - 1 May 2018.pdf :- *Communications Q2* Good to go. *The Complaint Q3* Alternative (a) is my preference *The Response Q1, Q5, Q11, Q14* - Agreeable to the merging of Q1 and Q5 as undertaken by staff. - Q11, Q14 are good to go. *The Examiner Q13, Q14, Q15* - Q13 and Q15 are good to go - Q14 - again, yes to deletion *Default Q1* *I like and support the language in staff's alternative (b). Thank you to staff for re-framing the intent of my alternative (a) so nicely.* *Examiner Determination Q2, Q9, Q10* - Yes, please delete Q2 and Q9 - Q10(a) and (b) are good to go (are we retaining the Providers' Responses in the final copy?) *Remedies Q2* Agreeable to Q2 as worded. It serves as a follow on to Communications Q5(C). *Effect of Court Proceedings Q1No one else weighed in on this question? While I am rather ambivalent to the current wording, I think the original wording better reflects a more focused intent to the question.* *Current: To your knowledge, have there been instances of legal proceedings relating to URS proceedings and, if so, what effect did such instance(s) have?vs.Original: How often, if ever, was a related legal proceeding initiated prior to or during a URS proceeding? What was the effect on the URS proceeding?* *Appeal Q2* Yes, delete Q2 *Others Q3, Q5* - Q3 is good to go - Q5 - please delete As for the other marked questions, I am shifting my position to mirror that of Phil's as stated on pg 14 which I understand is to discard questions for which Providers have already given complete answers, but where the completeness of Providers answers are in doubt, to include our questions, *irrespective of the analysis conducted by Rebecca Tushnet and her team*. This position applies to: - The Complaint Q4, Q10 - Fees Q2 - The Response Q3 - Language Q3 - Examiner Determination Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9 - Determinations and Publication Q1, Q3 Thanks, Justine ----- On 2 May 2018 at 09:39, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers