Dear All, Kindly see the notes and action items captured during today’s call. They are posted to the Sub Team wiki space; call recording will be posted shortly. See: https://community.icann.org/x/VC_8B. 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 Supplemental Rules prior to the call on Wednesday, 4 April; staff to circulate the Supplemental Rules, as well as the mapping document and high level technical requirement documents 2. Staff to update the proposed draft questions to Providers (incorporating the ones related to URS Procedure and the ones proposed by the Document Sub Team) and remove the duplicative ones 3. Staff to review the presentation slides and transcript from the URS Providers presentation session at ICANN61 (Thursday, 15 March) and check what proposed questions have already been answered. Staff to circulate the information with the Sub Team 4. Staff to check how the additional six months extension in 6.4. was originated, and what was changed between 2009 and 2013. Notes: 1. Review the proposed questions to URS Providers by the Documents Sub Team * All questions can be included in the consolidated list of proposed questions, given duplications are removed * Regarding the question for the topic “Standard of Proof”, if the guide is to be developed, it should be one, uniform guide used by all Providers * Regarding the question for the topic “Abuse of Process”, the definition of “Respondent abuse” needs to be clarified. How does the abuse of the URS process by respondent look like? 1. Proposed questions in relations to the URS Procedure * 1.1.3. Have the Providers accepted a Complaint that multiple related companies were against one Registrant? Have the Providers accepted a Complaint that was against multiple related Registrants? * 1.2.6.3. What other circumstances -- not included in the non-exclusive list in this provision -- have the Providers seen that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith? * 1.2.7. Has any Complainant expressed any difficulty about the 500 words limit? * 2.2. How many Complaints listed fifteen or more disputed domain names registered by the same Registrant? If the Providers have seen such cases, how many Respondents paid the Response Fee? * 3.2. Has there been any issue with regard to meeting the two (2) business days requirement of conducting the Administrative Review? * 3.4. How many Complaints have been found non-compliant? * 4.1. Have Providers heard any difficulty from Registry Operator with regard to locking the domain within 24 hours of receipt of the Notice of Complaint? * 4.2. Is there a way to know whether a Registrant has received the hard and electronic copy of the Notice of Complaint, and confirmed receipt? * 5.2. Have Providers received any late responses? What are the fees associated with these late responses? * 5.3. Have Providers received any extension of time to respond? If so, was the request received after Default (14 Calendar Days), or after Determination (no more than 30 Calendar Days)? * 5.4. Is it a reasonable balance of the word limits between the Complaint (500 words) and the Response (2,500 words)? * 5.7. Have the Providers received Responses that contain facts refuting the claim of bad faith registration by setting out any other circumstances not included in this provision? Is the list of circumstances inclusive? * 5.9. What percentage of URS cases contain elements of domain investing? * 6.4. (footnote) The definition of “extension” needs to be clarified – Extend what for six months? Why does a Registrant need an additional six months? * ACTION: Staff to check how the additional six months extension in this provision was originated, and what was changed between 2009 and 2013. * 7.3. What procedures does a Provider have to rotate the Examiners? * 8.1. Has any Examiner mistakenly rendered his/her Determination due to factors beyond the three elements mentioned in this provision? * 10.3. How many Complainants have requested to extend the registration period for one additional year? * 11.3. Have the Providers found any abusive Complaint? How do the Providers share information about abusive Complaints? * 12. Has there been any case that the same Examiner was selected for the Appeal Panel whose Determination was appealed? 1. Next Steps/Next Meeting * No more than two more meetings for the Providers Sub Team. * Next meeting to develop questions for Supplemental Rules, as well as the High Level Technical Requirements. Sub Team to review the relevant documents prior to the call. Sub Team to begin editing/finalizing all proposed questions.