Dear Providers Sub Team, Following up on the staff message below, please find attached the two documents to be used for the Providers Sub Team call tomorrow (Wednesday, 29 August) at 12:00-13:30 UTC. The focus of the discussion is going to be Document 2: RPM-Proposed Wording of URS Providers Sub-082818. 1. RPM-CLEAN SUPER CONSOLIDATED URS TOPICS TABLE (24 August 2018) This is the latest version of the “Super Consolidated URS Topics Table” document prepared by staff. It incorporates all the resulting additional or amended findings/issues and proposed suggestions following the Sub Team’s completion of the action items from last week’s call. These additional/amended findings/issues and proposed suggestions are colored in PINK within the table. Besides this main update, the other changes are: 1. Intro text: updated the color legends in the red box, bullet points under “notes”, and minor grammatical corrections 2. Added the new category of “SUB TEAM CONCLUSION” in grey, which is neither policy recommendation nor operational fixe 3. Changed “DRAFT RECOMMENDATION” to “DRAFT POLICY RECOMMENDATION” 4. In Section E. Defenses, added “SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL RESEARCH” (can be treated as an action item) 5. Added data sources due to Providers Sub Team’s follow-up with Providers & ICANN GDD 6. Removed all ACTION ITEMS of the Providers Sub Team due to completion 7. Removed a couple of older proposed suggestions from the Providers Sub Team as they no longer stand 8. Removed the Co-Chairs’ comments about the SMD files under “Additional Sub Team Notes” as the SMD file issue has been addressed 9. Formatting improvements, e.g., including legend in the footer and repeating header row of each table 2. RPM-Proposed Wording of URS Providers Sub-082818 This document is drafted by Co-Chair Phil Corwin, which includes the proposed revised wording of the Providers Sub Team’s proposed suggestions (based on content in the column 3 of the updated “Super Consolidated URS Topics Table”). The document is solely for the purpose of efficiently facilitating tomorrow’s discussion, and the proposed wording is subject to the Sub Team’s modification. Likewise, Phil conveyed that the inclusion of a proposal in this document does not mean it will be forwarded to the full WG; that decision is for the Sub Team to make. Last, please find the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s meeting: 1. Review Agenda 2. Discussions of the Proposed Revised Wording of URS Providers Sub Team Proposals 3. AOB Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 6:39 PM To: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Review of Draft URS Policy Recommendations/Operational Fixes Dear URS Providers Sub Team members, The RPM PDP Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC is cancelled. Instead, in preparation for the Working Group meeting to be held on 05 September, the Co-Chairs are requesting that the Sub Teams should review their draft URS policy recommendations and operational fixes reflected in the attached current version of the Super Consolidated table to ensure that they are specific and justified proposals for which there is sub team agreement for full WG discussion and consideration. For example, a recommendation might be, ““Providers should be required to check the websites of the other URS and UDRP Providers to ensure a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding” to replace the current language at “4. Administrative Review, which currently reads, “WG to consider whether to recommend that Providers check the websites of the other Providers to ensure a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding or court case.” That would create a specific detailed proposal as well as drop the reference to court cases, which the Providers Sub Team determined on its last call would be administratively burdensome, as well as unnecessary as a registrant would be in the best position to know of pending litigation against a domain. Putting this proposal out for public comment would allow the community to weigh in on whether this proposal had merit, or was unnecessary due to the brief duration of URS actions. To this end, the Sub Team leader will suggest language for consideration at a Sub Team call scheduled for this Wednesday at the Working Group meeting time above. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie On Behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-chairs