Hi Ariel, Right. Thanks for pointing out ADNDRC's response on my Q6. That being the case, then it would make sense to *discard* my Q6 altogether, and pose Q7 (renumbered) to all 3 providers, and I would suggest this for the Sub-team's consideration. Thanks, Justine ----- On 16 April 2018 at 20:31, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Justine,
Thanks very much for rewording the questions!
Regarding your comment for Q6 (Whether ADNDRC providers an online template for Examiners in writing a determination), ADNDRC responded that they also provide a template for their Examiners (they didn’t specify whether it is online or not). This info was provided during the ICANN61 presentation (also posted as a response to Q5, immediately preceding Q6).
Best Regards,
Ariel
*From: *Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> *Date: *Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 11:56 PM *To: *"gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Review Responses to Proposed Questions to Providers
Dear Sub-team colleagues,
1) As promised, I have redrafted Q7 (which was Q6 before) under Examiner Determination on page 21 of the Google Doc <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji 8iuSIt4EnTlrd0/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. For easy reference, I am re-posting a clean version of the same in blue italicized text below:
*Q7. (To FORUM and MFSD) Do you intervene in an administrative capacity to ensure your Examiners provide the most comprehensive written determinations they possibly can? How do you strive to standardize the completeness or quality of your Examiners’ written determinations beyond the use of your online Determination template or form? *
2) Further, I think the what was the *first* bullet point in the paragraph immediately preceding now Q7 should be made Q6, because I don't recall seeing an answer from ADNDRC in the Providers' presentation or Q&A part of the relevant ICANN61 session. Unless their reply has been included in any subsequent followup written reply, in which case I would appreciate if Ariel could point out the same. Again for easy reference, I am re-posting a clean version of the same in blue italicized text below:
*Q6. **(To ADNDRC) To guide their Examiners in writing a determination, FORUM provides an online template while MFSD provides on online Determination form. Does ADNDRC have a similar practice? If not, do you provide any alternative form of guidance for the drafting of URS decisions? ***
3) In this same version of the Google Doc <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
[docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>we can see a record of more replies that have been provided to some of the questions (i.e. those marked in green highlight by Ariel). So, I wanted to ask if the Sub-team will still move to include all the questions we have identified in the Google Doc or will we now consider trimming the questions list hereon?
If we do take the approach of trimming the questions list (which I think is appropriate) then how do we establish an effective way to highlight to the full WG that many of the questions that were identified by the Sub-team and by the WG members at the relevant ICANN61 session have been addressed/replied to, such that WG members won't raise repeated or redundant questions simply because they may not have followed the work of the Sub-team closely. Would the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>
table[docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...> sufficiently represent an effective way?
Thanks,
Justine -----
On 12 April 2018 at 10:20, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
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: [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
[docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji 8iuSIt4EnTlrd0/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. 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 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>
[docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>
table[docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...> 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)
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Ariel Liang* <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: 12 April 2018 at 03:47 Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Action Items & Notes - Provider Sub Team Meeting Wed 11 April To: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>
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[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_g...> .
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[docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 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?
1. 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.
1. 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers