Thanks Ariel. This looks to be fairly standard language as to an examiner drawing an inference, for whatever worth. Brian From: Ariel Liang [mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2018 4:16 PM To: BECKHAM, Brian Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [Ext] RE: Follow-up Questions to Providers & Other Sources Hello Brian, If staff may provide some information regarding the note/action item – The note is related to MFSD’s response to the question: “Has any of your Examiners drawn inferences per URS Rule 12(f) when a party is not in compliance with URS Rules, Procedures, and Supplemental Rules, in the absence of exceptional circumstances? If so, what inferences were made?” MFSD’s response is: Yes. In Default Determinations Examiners concluded that: "Respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. Although, the Examiner may draw appropriate inferences from a Respondent’s default, Paragraph 12 of the URS Rules requires the Examiner to review the Complaint for a prima facie case, including complete and appropriate evidence [...] The Examiner finds that in this case there are no such exceptional circumstances. Consequently, failure on the part of the Respondent to file a response to the Complaint permits an inference that the Complainant’s reasonable allegations are true. It may also permit the Examiner to infer that the Respondent does not deny the facts that the Complainant asserted" (e.g. Dispute no. 8422F178 e-leclerc.paris; Dispute no. 429EC571 reinhausen.international). When this was discussed during the RPM session at ICANN62, a suggestion from the Sub Team is to further examine the dispute quoted in MFSD’s response and review the full information to understand whether further deliberation is needed. Hope this provides some context to this note/action item. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:31 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [Ext] RE: Follow-up Questions to Providers & Other Sources Dear Providers subteam members, I am going over the “super consolidated doc” and wondered if you might help me understand the intention behind this note: “Sub Team/WG to examine MFSD Dispute no. 8422F178 [urs.mfsd.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urs.mfsd.it_system-5Fda...> e-leclerc.paris; MFSD Dispute no. 429EC571 [urs.mfsd.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urs.mfsd.it_system-5Fda...> reinhausen.international).” Thanks! Brian From: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 12:54 AM To: Corwin, Philip Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [Ext] RE: Follow-up Questions to Providers & Other Sources Hello Phil and all, Yes, that is correct. In the interest of time, the follow-up questions have been sent to the Providers and ICANN GDD. Staff’s understanding is that we needed to send the follow-up questions as quickly as possible and did not realize that you wanted to review them. The areas for follow-up and which Provider to follow up with are also noted in the “Suggested List of Issues for Discussion – URS Providers Survey” document, which was circulated last Monday. Since no input was received on these points, staff went ahead and developed these follow-up questions based on our observation and understanding. We are happy to clarify if necessary, and if URS Providers have any confusion/question. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 6:42 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Follow-up Questions to Providers & Other Sources Ariel: Based on your email it appears that the questions to Providers have already gone out. Is that correct? There are a few instances where I think the questions could have been more clearly worded, or where it might have been beneficial to ask all providers rather than just select ones. It would have been useful to have been able to review this prior to the transmission of the questions. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 7:09 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Follow-up Questions to Providers & Other Sources Dear Providers Sub Team members, With support from the Co-Chair, staff have developed a list of follow up questions to URS Providers and other sources, including ICANN GDD, registries, and registers. Please find the list of follow-up questions attached. The follow-up questions were developed based on staff’s observation and understanding of the Sub Team’s review of the Providers’ responses. The row numbers in the chart corresponds to the row numbers in the spreadsheet of Providers’ responses [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>. The target for the question is indicated with “x”. Please note the questions/draft emails to registries and/or registrars, which are highlighted in yellow, will not be sent out now. The reason is that the TMCH Sunrise & Claims surveys will be distributed to the registries and registrars next week. Additional questions related to the URS Providers issue may distract them from the TMCH surveys and hinder the response rate. In the interest of time, staff will be sending these questions to URS Providers and ICANN GDD now and request them to respond within two weeks (by Monday, 20 August). We hope their swift response would help facilitate the WG deliberation on issues identified by the Sub Team. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, Berry World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.