Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Providers Sub Team Call: Questions on Supplemental Rules and High Level Technical Requirements
Dear colleagues, My apologies for having to miss the call later, it's getting rather late where I am. In the interim, I had a handful of questions to raise (noting that some may be already contained in any one of the pools of information that staff is compiling and sorting):- *(1) Supplemental Rules* *Generally* - Do the providers undertake their own internal reviews of their Supplemental Rules and if yes, how often, and have they found a need to tighten or provide greater clarity on their Rules in any way? *Annexes to Complaints, in particular SMD* - Clause 4(i) - how does the Forum handle the submission (through its online complaint filing site) of a relevant SMD proof of use from the TMCH which is expressly provided for in the Rules clause 3(b)(v)? An SMD is typically a file with the extension .smd and such format is not expressly provided for under the Forum's Annex A. As comparison, MFSD's Supplementary Rules Clause 3 expressly specifies acceptance of .smd file as an annex. - Does ADNDRC's electronic complaint form (Form C_URS) also allow the uploading of .smd files as MFSD? *Communication* (one that Phil had picked up on last week) - How is ADNDRC not in breach of the Rules Clause 2(a)(i) Procedures Clause 4.3 in relying SOLELY on email as the mode for issuing a Notice of Complaint? *Impartiality and Independence of Examiners* - Do all 3 providers undertake independent inquiries to adequately satisfy themselves as to the impartiality and independence of their Examiners or do they merely rely on the oath or declaration made by each Examiner? - Has there been any incidences of allegations of partiality or non-independence or biasedness of an Examiner being raised by any party of an URS proceeding either during the initial determination process or as ground for a review or appeal? - Has ADNDRC experienced an event where an Examiner refused or failed to act per its Supplementary Rules Article 8.4? What motivated ADNDRC to include that Article 8.4? *Determinations* - Both the Forum and MFSD provide a template or guidelines to their Examiners in writing a determination. Doe ADNDRC do the same? - How do Forum and MFSD compel their Examiners to comply with such template or guidelines? (Noting previous remarks that the quality of determinations vary from Examiner to Examiner) Also questions around the selection, qualifications and training of Examiners which I recall have been adequately raised elsewhere. *(2) High Level Technical Requirements* - Clause 5, Registrar Requirement 2: what does "a normal domain name lifecycle" mean? In concluding, I am looking forward to reviewing the full list of proposed questions, and will be happy to assist in an onward 'wordsmith-ing' effort of those questions, where necessary. Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On 4 April 2018 at 01:37, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on the staff action items from last week’s call, please be so kind to find attached a document that contains:
- *Consolidated proposed questions for Providers* -- including questions: 1) pertaining to URS Rules, Procedures, and MoU; 2) from the Document Sub Team; 3) asked during the ICANN61 Providers’ presentation. Duplicated/repetitive questions have been either removed or combined - *Responses already received from Providers* during their ICANN61 presentation -- slides <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/URS%20Providers%20...>, transcript <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Transcription%20IC...>, Q&A excerpt <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Q%26A%20with%20URS...> - *Additional written responses from ADNDRC* -- document <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Additional%20Writt...> sent by Carri Shang to staff following the ICANN61 presentation - *References to relevant Supplemental Rules *to answer certain questions - *Additional Notes *– staff research as per Sub Team requests
Google Doc version can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg/ edit?usp=sharing
Among the 90+ proposed questions, around half already have certain form of responses/answers. Staff hope this document would help the Sub Team further refine, edit, and narrow down the list of questions for the Providers.
Please see below the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s call (*Wednesday, 4 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC*).
1. Sub Team continue reviewing and developing objective questions with regard to Providers’ Supplemental Rules and High Level Technical Requirements 2. Sub Team begin to edit/finalize all proposed questions 3. Next steps/next meeting
All relevant documents have been uploaded on the meeting’s wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/QoLpB>. As a gentle reminder, please review the Supplemental Rules and Technical Requirements before tomorrow’s meeting (you may use the Mapping Document for more efficient review).
*IMPORTANT*
*Adobe Connect will not be available for the call.* Kindly note the instruction sent by GNSO Secretariat below. The ICANN developed guide for using the alternative teleconference platform is attached.
Thank you,
Ariel
*Ariel Xinyue Liang*
Policy Analyst | Washington, DC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Hi Ariel, I sent the following questions to the list prior to the last call. Could you please add them to the list of questions? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Date: 5 April 2018 at 00:30 Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Providers Sub Team Call: Questions on Supplemental Rules and High Level Technical Requirements To: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Dear colleagues, My apologies for having to miss the call later, it's getting rather late where I am. In the interim, I had a handful of questions to raise (noting that some may be already contained in any one of the pools of information that staff is compiling and sorting):- *(1) Supplemental Rules* *Generally* - Do the providers undertake their own internal reviews of their Supplemental Rules and if yes, how often, and have they found a need to tighten or provide greater clarity on their Rules in any way? *Annexes to Complaints, in particular SMD* - Clause 4(i) - how does the Forum handle the submission (through its online complaint filing site) of a relevant SMD proof of use from the TMCH which is expressly provided for in the Rules clause 3(b)(v)? An SMD is typically a file with the extension .smd and such format is not expressly provided for under the Forum's Annex A. As comparison, MFSD's Supplementary Rules Clause 3 expressly specifies acceptance of .smd file as an annex. - Does ADNDRC's electronic complaint form (Form C_URS) also allow the uploading of .smd files as MFSD? *Communication* (one that Phil had picked up on last week) - How is ADNDRC not in breach of the Rules Clause 2(a)(i) Procedures Clause 4.3 in relying SOLELY on email as the mode for issuing a Notice of Complaint? *Impartiality and Independence of Examiners* - Do all 3 providers undertake independent inquiries to adequately satisfy themselves as to the impartiality and independence of their Examiners or do they merely rely on the oath or declaration made by each Examiner? - Has there been any incidences of allegations of partiality or non-independence or biasedness of an Examiner being raised by any party of an URS proceeding either during the initial determination process or as ground for a review or appeal? - Has ADNDRC experienced an event where an Examiner refused or failed to act per its Supplementary Rules Article 8.4? What motivated ADNDRC to include that Article 8.4? *Determinations* - Both the Forum and MFSD provide a template or guidelines to their Examiners in writing a determination. Doe ADNDRC do the same? - How do Forum and MFSD compel their Examiners to comply with such template or guidelines? (Noting previous remarks that the quality of determinations vary from Examiner to Examiner) Also questions around the selection, qualifications and training of Examiners which I recall have been adequately raised elsewhere. *(2) High Level Technical Requirements* - Clause 5, Registrar Requirement 2: what does "a normal domain name lifecycle" mean? In concluding, I am looking forward to reviewing the full list of proposed questions, and will be happy to assist in an onward 'wordsmith-ing' effort of those questions, where necessary. Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On 4 April 2018 at 01:37, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on the staff action items from last week’s call, please be so kind to find attached a document that contains:
- *Consolidated proposed questions for Providers* -- including questions: 1) pertaining to URS Rules, Procedures, and MoU; 2) from the Document Sub Team; 3) asked during the ICANN61 Providers’ presentation. Duplicated/repetitive questions have been either removed or combined - *Responses already received from Providers* during their ICANN61 presentation -- slides <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/URS%20Providers%20...>, transcript <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Transcription%20IC...>, Q&A excerpt <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Q%26A%20with%20URS...> - *Additional written responses from ADNDRC* -- document <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79436564/Additional%20Writt...> sent by Carri Shang to staff following the ICANN61 presentation - *References to relevant Supplemental Rules *to answer certain questions - *Additional Notes *– staff research as per Sub Team requests
Google Doc version can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spread sheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg/edit?usp=sharing
Among the 90+ proposed questions, around half already have certain form of responses/answers. Staff hope this document would help the Sub Team further refine, edit, and narrow down the list of questions for the Providers.
Please see below the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s call (*Wednesday, 4 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC*).
1. Sub Team continue reviewing and developing objective questions with regard to Providers’ Supplemental Rules and High Level Technical Requirements 2. Sub Team begin to edit/finalize all proposed questions 3. Next steps/next meeting
All relevant documents have been uploaded on the meeting’s wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/QoLpB>. As a gentle reminder, please review the Supplemental Rules and Technical Requirements before tomorrow’s meeting (you may use the Mapping Document for more efficient review).
*IMPORTANT*
*Adobe Connect will not be available for the call.* Kindly note the instruction sent by GNSO Secretariat below. The ICANN developed guide for using the alternative teleconference platform is attached.
Thank you,
Ariel
*Ariel Xinyue Liang*
Policy Analyst | Washington, DC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Yes, will do. Thank you, Justine! Best Regards, Ariel From: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 8:13 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Fwd: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Providers Sub Team Call: Questions on Supplemental Rules and High Level Technical Requirements Hi Ariel, I sent the following questions to the list prior to the last call. Could you please add them to the list of questions? Thanks, Justine Chew ----- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> Date: 5 April 2018 at 00:30 Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Providers Sub Team Call: Questions on Supplemental Rules and High Level Technical Requirements To: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> Dear colleagues, My apologies for having to miss the call later, it's getting rather late where I am. In the interim, I had a handful of questions to raise (noting that some may be already contained in any one of the pools of information that staff is compiling and sorting):- (1) Supplemental Rules Generally * Do the providers undertake their own internal reviews of their Supplemental Rules and if yes, how often, and have they found a need to tighten or provide greater clarity on their Rules in any way? Annexes to Complaints, in particular SMD * Clause 4(i) - how does the Forum handle the submission (through its online complaint filing site) of a relevant SMD proof of use from the TMCH which is expressly provided for in the Rules clause 3(b)(v)? An SMD is typically a file with the extension .smd and such format is not expressly provided for under the Forum's Annex A. As comparison, MFSD's Supplementary Rules Clause 3 expressly specifies acceptance of .smd file as an annex. * Does ADNDRC's electronic complaint form (Form C_URS) also allow the uploading of .smd files as MFSD? Communication (one that Phil had picked up on last week) * How is ADNDRC not in breach of the Rules Clause 2(a)(i) Procedures Clause 4.3 in relying SOLELY on email as the mode for issuing a Notice of Complaint? Impartiality and Independence of Examiners * Do all 3 providers undertake independent inquiries to adequately satisfy themselves as to the impartiality and independence of their Examiners or do they merely rely on the oath or declaration made by each Examiner? * Has there been any incidences of allegations of partiality or non-independence or biasedness of an Examiner being raised by any party of an URS proceeding either during the initial determination process or as ground for a review or appeal? * Has ADNDRC experienced an event where an Examiner refused or failed to act per its Supplementary Rules Article 8.4? What motivated ADNDRC to include that Article 8.4? Determinations * Both the Forum and MFSD provide a template or guidelines to their Examiners in writing a determination. Doe ADNDRC do the same? * How do Forum and MFSD compel their Examiners to comply with such template or guidelines? (Noting previous remarks that the quality of determinations vary from Examiner to Examiner) Also questions around the selection, qualifications and training of Examiners which I recall have been adequately raised elsewhere. (2) High Level Technical Requirements * Clause 5, Registrar Requirement 2: what does "a normal domain name lifecycle" mean? In concluding, I am looking forward to reviewing the full list of proposed questions, and will be happy to assist in an onward 'wordsmith-ing' effort of those questions, where necessary. Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On 4 April 2018 at 01:37, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Following up on the staff action items from last week’s call, please be so kind to find attached a document that contains: * Consolidated proposed questions for Providers -- including questions: 1) pertaining to URS Rules, Procedures, and MoU; 2) from the Document Sub Team; 3) asked during the ICANN61 Providers’ presentation. Duplicated/repetitive questions have been either removed or combined * Responses already received from Providers during their ICANN61 presentation -- slides[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...>, transcript[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...>, Q&A excerpt[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...> * Additional written responses from ADNDRC -- document[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...> sent by Carri Shang to staff following the ICANN61 presentation * References to relevant Supplemental Rules to answer certain questions * Additional Notes – staff research as per Sub Team requests Google Doc version can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1I-2Dqe-5FI4OkQT7IU-5FrjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=3VJuqlFEVOEu3ELEjfA_oKpfg0kJvXf9ncUnLEKanGs&s=tTmBHM301o7Nz6bJ2BXiRi4ZvDCMYMEaFN-HVuBYbig&e=> Among the 90+ proposed questions, around half already have certain form of responses/answers. Staff hope this document would help the Sub Team further refine, edit, and narrow down the list of questions for the Providers. Please see below the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s call (Wednesday, 4 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC). 1. Sub Team continue reviewing and developing objective questions with regard to Providers’ Supplemental Rules and High Level Technical Requirements 2. Sub Team begin to edit/finalize all proposed questions 3. Next steps/next meeting All relevant documents have been uploaded on the meeting’s wiki page[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Q...>. As a gentle reminder, please review the Supplemental Rules and Technical Requirements before tomorrow’s meeting (you may use the Mapping Document for more efficient review). IMPORTANT Adobe Connect will not be available for the call. Kindly note the instruction sent by GNSO Secretariat below. The ICANN developed guide for using the alternative teleconference platform is attached. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
participants (2)
-
Ariel Liang -
Justine Chew