April 2018 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers
by Paul Keating April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

Julie and all, First, my apologies for not responding yesterday but this was not received until after business hours in Barcelona. I propose to add the following questions to BOTH the practitioners AND ADR questions. The questions are intended to understand the process of ensuring against bias and conflicts of interest in the context of URS proceedings. To Providers: 1. Do you assign URS disputes to panelists on a random basis (y/n) 2. If no please briefly describe the process undertaken to select panelists in any given URS dispute 2. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n) 3. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:32 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers > Hello everyone, > > In preparation for tomorrow¹s WG call, please be so kind to find attached the > redline document of the proposed questions to URS Providers. The document > includes comments/suggestions from WG members, and the input/feedback to these > comments/suggestions from the Providers Sub Team (received by the deadline at > 12:00 UTC on Tuesday, 24 April). > > Please be so kind to review this redline document prior to the call tomorrow > (Wednesday, 25 April at 12:00 UTC). Thanks again to those who have commented > and provided input! > > Best Regards, > Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry > > > > From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund > <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> > Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM > To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 25 April > 2018 at 1200 UTC > > > Dear RPM PDP WG members, > > Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call > Wednesday, 25 April 2018, scheduled for 1200 UTC (note earlier time calendar > invite will be sent via separate email): > > Proposed Agenda: > 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest > 2. Status of Questions for Practitioners > 3. Finalize Questions for Providers > 4. Notice of agenda for 02 May meeting > > Best regards, > Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry > > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 25 April 2018
by Julie Hedlund April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

Hi Brian, Thank you very much and this is noted. Kind regards, Julie From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:15 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 25 April 2018 Hi Julie, To hopefully move us forward, all of the comments from me can be deleted (i.e., they were discussed on the call). One item did need an update, which was agreed on the call. Namely, Examiner Determination Q3 should be reworded to something like: Noting that URS Rules para 13(a) provide that an examiner may “make a Determination …in accordance with …any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”, are you aware of instances where an Examiner has invoked substantive criteria beyond those articulated in the URS? Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 7:07 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 25 April 2018 Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the Working Group call held on 25 April 2018 (1200 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki. The referenced document is attached. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Questions for URS Practitioners: The Sub Team will finalize the questions by Monday, 30 April. Staff will create a survey and send to the Practitioners. Questions for Providers: Staff will close the document for review by Friday, 27 April and send it to the Sub Team for a final review. The Sub Team will complete a review of the questions by COB Monday, 30 April. Staff will send the questions to the Providers. Notes: 1. Questions for URS Practitioners: -- Question 3: Edit from George re: Question three – Reword as two separate questions – filing and response fees. -- The Sub Team will finalize the questions by Monday, 30 April. 2. Questions for URS Providers: -- Responses from most Providers that they can respond in 30 days for most questions, and 45-60 days for questions that require a review of decisions. -- Close the document for review by this Friday, 27 April and then send to the Providers. Review of the Questions: Communications: Question 2 – changes accepted. Question 5 – new question b captures the concern from Brian Beckham, and c addresses George’s concern. Question 6 – changes accepted. Question 7 – changes accepted. Complaints: Question 4 – Correct the grammar; providers may need to consult with examiners. Question stays as amended. It can stay in and that we understand the limitations around it. Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain Question 5: This has been moved to another section, question 2 in Communications: Rule 4(c): "The electronic copy of the Notice of Complaint may be provided via email or an emailed link to an online platform requiring users to create an account." It can be deleted here. George and Brian have accepted the edits. The Response: Question 1: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in. Question 4: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in. Question 11: Change to: “Have you received feedback that the Response period is inadequate?” Question 14: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in. Question 15: DELETE. Concerned about the definition of “domain investors”. It will be quite difficult if not impossible to get this information from providers. Doesn’t seem much utility in the answers. Also may be able to get some of this information from determination data being gathered by Rebecca. Examiner: Question 12b: No case of an abusive complaint – no entry in the abuse case database – so is this question still necessary? Leave it in because we want to know if they have a policy. Revise to include the URDP concept of RDNH. Rewrite to ask whether the provider has a policy of allowing someone to be an examiner if they also represent complainants. Question 12c: is suggesting that part c of the question isn’t needed since we already have responses from the providers. But there is a difference between how many examiners are on the roster and how many are actually deciding decisions. Edit to make this a more targeted question regarding the size of the examiner pool, whether random assignment is used, etc. by COB 25 April. Question 13: Providers would not know the status of their examiners. Examiners may not be willing or able to say either. Also seems to be suggesting that you can’t represent both respondents and complainants. Not sure what is the point of the question. ACTION: Rephrase to focus on panel selection policy to encourage diversity in trademark practice. Suggestion: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience, e.g. have experience representing respondents as well as complainants?" Language: Question 4: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in. In Person Hearings: DELETE. Question doesn’t make sense. Default: Question 1: Seems to ask providers how they do something for a procedure over which they have no control. ACTION: Take it back to the Sub Team to consider deleting. Question 2: DELETE. We already have this information from the case review for both within 6 months and after 6 months. Question 3: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in Examiner Determination: Question 3: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in, but include Brian’s reformulation: “Noting URS Rules 13(a) that Examiners may ‘make a Determination …in accordance with …any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.’ Are you aware whether any case that the Examiner has invoked this rule?” Question 8: Possibly duplicative. ACTION: Take it back to the Sub Team to consider deleting, or rephrase it. Question 10: DELETE. Provider can’t know what the examiner assigns to others in their office. But could rephrase if they are aware or provide any suggested language or clerical help to examiners. George will send revised language. Remedies: Question 4: This is seeking an opinion; keep it in. Question 5: DELETE. Keep it for the WG. Question 6: Leave it in, but add: “If yes, what action did you take on receiving the notice or to resolve the query?” Effect of Court Proceeding. Question 1: Ask David McAuley to send revised language. Done: “To your knowledge, have there been instances of legal proceedings relating to URS proceedings and, if so, what effect did such instance(s) have?” Others: Question 3: Leave it in, and ask, “If so can you provide the type of information or data requested..” Also, combine with Question 4. Question 4: See above. Combine with question 3. Question 6: Policy question. Unless others have suggestions for rewriting it, the question will be deleted. Question 7: DELETE. Determined to be out of scope. Or, we could ask if Providers support sanctions against abusers of the process whether Complainant or Respondent. Also, could ask all Providers if they clearly disclose potential conflicts? Or could ask FORUM specifically. Hold off decision on this call and discuss further, although leave it out of the list of questions for now. [wipo.int] Powering change: Women in innovation and creativity World Intellectual Property Day 2018 April 26 wipo.int/ipday[wipo.int] #worldipday 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.

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 25 April 2018
by Julie Hedlund April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the Working Group call held on 25 April 2018 (1200 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki. The referenced document is attached. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Questions for URS Practitioners: The Sub Team will finalize the questions by Monday, 30 April. Staff will create a survey and send to the Practitioners. Questions for Providers: Staff will close the document for review by Friday, 27 April and send it to the Sub Team for a final review. The Sub Team will complete a review of the questions by COB Monday, 30 April. Staff will send the questions to the Providers. Notes: 1. Questions for URS Practitioners: -- Question 3: Edit from George re: Question three – Reword as two separate questions – filing and response fees. -- The Sub Team will finalize the questions by Monday, 30 April. 2. Questions for URS Providers: -- Responses from most Providers that they can respond in 30 days for most questions, and 45-60 days for questions that require a review of decisions. -- Close the document for review by this Friday, 27 April and then send to the Providers. Review of the Questions: Communications: Question 2 – changes accepted. Question 5 – new question b captures the concern from Brian Beckham, and c addresses George’s concern. Question 6 – changes accepted. Question 7 – changes accepted. Complaints: Question 4 – Correct the grammar; providers may need to consult with examiners. Question stays as amended. It can stay in and that we understand the limitations around it. Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain Question 5: This has been moved to another section, question 2 in Communications: Rule 4(c): "The electronic copy of the Notice of Complaint may be provided via email or an emailed link to an online platform requiring users to create an account." It can be deleted here. George and Brian have accepted the edits. The Response: Question 1: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in. Question 4: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in. Question 11: Change to: “Have you received feedback that the Response period is inadequate?” Question 14: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in. Question 15: DELETE. Concerned about the definition of “domain investors”. It will be quite difficult if not impossible to get this information from providers. Doesn’t seem much utility in the answers. Also may be able to get some of this information from determination data being gathered by Rebecca. Examiner: Question 12b: No case of an abusive complaint – no entry in the abuse case database – so is this question still necessary? Leave it in because we want to know if they have a policy. Revise to include the URDP concept of RDNH. Rewrite to ask whether the provider has a policy of allowing someone to be an examiner if they also represent complainants. Question 12c: is suggesting that part c of the question isn’t needed since we already have responses from the providers. But there is a difference between how many examiners are on the roster and how many are actually deciding decisions. Edit to make this a more targeted question regarding the size of the examiner pool, whether random assignment is used, etc. by COB 25 April. Question 13: Providers would not know the status of their examiners. Examiners may not be willing or able to say either. Also seems to be suggesting that you can’t represent both respondents and complainants. Not sure what is the point of the question. ACTION: Rephrase to focus on panel selection policy to encourage diversity in trademark practice. Suggestion: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience, e.g. have experience representing respondents as well as complainants?" Language: Question 4: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in. In Person Hearings: DELETE. Question doesn’t make sense. Default: Question 1: Seems to ask providers how they do something for a procedure over which they have no control. ACTION: Take it back to the Sub Team to consider deleting. Question 2: DELETE. We already have this information from the case review for both within 6 months and after 6 months. Question 3: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in Examiner Determination: Question 3: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days. Leave the question in, but include Brian’s reformulation: “Noting URS Rules 13(a) that Examiners may ‘make a Determination …in accordance with …any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.’ Are you aware whether any case that the Examiner has invoked this rule?” Question 8: Possibly duplicative. ACTION: Take it back to the Sub Team to consider deleting, or rephrase it. Question 10: DELETE. Provider can’t know what the examiner assigns to others in their office. But could rephrase if they are aware or provide any suggested language or clerical help to examiners. George will send revised language. Remedies: Question 4: This is seeking an opinion; keep it in. Question 5: DELETE. Keep it for the WG. Question 6: Leave it in, but add: “If yes, what action did you take on receiving the notice or to resolve the query?” Effect of Court Proceeding. Question 1: Ask David McAuley to send revised language. Done: “To your knowledge, have there been instances of legal proceedings relating to URS proceedings and, if so, what effect did such instance(s) have?” Others: Question 3: Leave it in, and ask, “If so can you provide the type of information or data requested..” Also, combine with Question 4. Question 4: See above. Combine with question 3. Question 6: Policy question. Unless others have suggestions for rewriting it, the question will be deleted. Question 7: DELETE. Determined to be out of scope. Or, we could ask if Providers support sanctions against abusers of the process whether Complainant or Respondent. Also, could ask all Providers if they clearly disclose potential conflicts? Or could ask FORUM specifically. Hold off decision on this call and discuss further, although leave it out of the list of questions for now.

2 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April
by Julie Hedlund April 25, 2018

April 25, 2018

Thanks Paul. Your suggested edits are noted. Best, Julie From: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es> Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:06 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Julie and all, First, my apologies for not responding yesterday but this was not received until after business hours in Barcelona. I propose to add the following questions to BOTH the practitioners AND ADR questions. The questions are intended to understand the process of ensuring against bias and conflicts of interest in the context of URS proceedings. Practitioners: 1. Do you serve as a URS panelist (Y/n) 2. If yes, do you undertake a law firm-wide conflicts check to verify that neither you nor your law firm has any actual or potentially adverse conflict of interest to the complainant and/or respondent? Yes No If yes, please briefly describe the methods used to verify the absence of conflicts If yes, do you retain records of your search 3. Have you ever communicated with a third party regarding an ongoing URS dispute in which you were a panelist? If yes, please briefly explain the nature of such communications. To Providers: 1. Do you assign URS disputes to panelists on a random basis (y/n) 2. If no please briefly describe the process undertaken to select panelists in any given URS dispute 2. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n) 3. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es[law.es] Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul(a)law.es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:15 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear all, Further to the message below, this is a reminder to send in any comments or suggested edits not later than today, Tuesday, 24 April. Any further suggestions will be considered along with those received thus far from Brian Beckham and George Kirikos. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear All, Please see the attached revised document “URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective” based on the comments and suggestions received during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April. Please review the document per the following action item highlighted below. The suggested edits are indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document. Questions for URS Practitioners: Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April (DONE-Attached) WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April; Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April. Please note: When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s). Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Recording, Attendance, & WebEx Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 25 April 2018
by Terri Agnew April 25, 2018

April 25, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and Webex Chat transcript attached to this email, and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 25 April 2018 at 12:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/TggFBQ> https://community.icann.org/x/TggFBQ MP3: <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-25apr18-en.mp3> https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-25apr18-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Tweak of question regarding effect of court proceedings on URS proceedings
by McAuley, David April 25, 2018

April 25, 2018

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG: Phil asked me on this morning's call to send to list a suggestion I made in chat regarding Question 1 under "Effect of Court Proceedings" in the "Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - 24 April 2018" document. You can see the original question on page 15 of that document<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-04-25+Review+of+all+R…>. Here is what I suggest as a tweak to the original question: To your knowledge, have there been instances of legal proceedings relating to URS proceedings and, if so, what effect did such instance(s) have? Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April
by Paul Keating April 25, 2018

April 25, 2018

Julie and all, First, my apologies for not responding yesterday but this was not received until after business hours in Barcelona. I propose to add the following questions to BOTH the practitioners AND ADR questions. The questions are intended to understand the process of ensuring against bias and conflicts of interest in the context of URS proceedings. Practitioners: 1. Do you serve as a URS panelist (Y/n) 2. If yes, do you undertake a law firm-wide conflicts check to verify that neither you nor your law firm has any actual or potentially adverse conflict of interest to the complainant and/or respondent? Yes No If yes, please briefly describe the methods used to verify the absence of conflicts If yes, do you retain records of your search 3. Have you ever communicated with a third party regarding an ongoing URS dispute in which you were a panelist? If yes, please briefly explain the nature of such communications. To Providers: 1. Do you assign URS disputes to panelists on a random basis (y/n) 2. If no please briefly describe the process undertaken to select panelists in any given URS dispute 2. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n) 3. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es <http://law.es/> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul(a)law.es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:15 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April > Dear all, > > Further to the message below, this is a reminder to send in any comments or > suggested edits not later than today, Tuesday, 24 April. Any further > suggestions will be considered along with those received thus far from Brian > Beckham and George Kirikos. > > Best Regards, > Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel > > > From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund > <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> > Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM > To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - > Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April > > > Dear All, > > Please see the attached revised document ³URS Practitioner Background > Experience and Perspective² based on the comments and suggestions received > during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April. Please review the document per > the following action item highlighted below. The suggested edits are > indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document. > > 1. Questions for URS Practitioners: >> 1. Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions >> by 18 April (DONE-Attached) >> 2. WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by >> COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April; >> 3. Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting >> on Wednesday, 25 April. > > Please note: > * When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct > typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a > survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the > substance. > * Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting > edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential > version confusion caused by Word file(s). > > Thank you for your time and review! > > Best Regards, > Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

FINAL: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners
by Julie Hedlund April 25, 2018

April 25, 2018

Dear all, Please see the final revised version of the Questions to URS Practitioners including the comments and suggested edits from Scott Austin, Brian Beckham, George Kirikos, Greg Shatan, and David McAuley. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:21 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear all, Further to the message below, this is a reminder to send in any comments or suggested edits not later than today, Tuesday, 24 April. Any further suggestions will be considered along with those received thus far from Brian Beckham and George Kirikos. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear All, Please see the attached revised document “URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective” based on the comments and suggestions received during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April. Please review the document per the following action item highlighted below. The suggested edits are indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document. Questions for URS Practitioners: Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April (DONE-Attached) WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April; Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April. Please note: When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s). Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April
by Julie Hedlund April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Hi David, Thank you very much for your comment and suggested edit. They are noted. Kind regards, Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley(a)verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:19 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Hi Julie, I was not part of the practitioners subteam and so if this comment has already been discussed then so be it. It is not a major issue. #3 under Substantive Issues asks this: Do you believe that the URS is being used for the types of cases for which it was intended, namely, clear cases of abuse? Someone could answer ‘agree’ and nonetheless believe it is also being used inappropriately. Wouldn’t it help to phrase it ‘generally being used’ or ‘primarily being used’ or some such phrase? Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:15 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear all, Further to the message below, this is a reminder to send in any comments or suggested edits not later than today, Tuesday, 24 April. Any further suggestions will be considered along with those received thus far from Brian Beckham and George Kirikos. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear All, Please see the attached revised document “URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective” based on the comments and suggestions received during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April. Please review the document per the following action item highlighted below. The suggested edits are indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document. Questions for URS Practitioners: Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April (DONE-Attached) WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April; Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April. Please note: When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s). Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

1 0

REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April
by Julie Hedlund April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Dear all, Further to the message below, this is a reminder to send in any comments or suggested edits not later than today, Tuesday, 24 April. Any further suggestions will be considered along with those received thus far from Brian Beckham and George Kirikos. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear All, Please see the attached revised document “URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective” based on the comments and suggestions received during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April. Please review the document per the following action item highlighted below. The suggested edits are indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document. Questions for URS Practitioners: Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April (DONE-Attached) WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April; Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April. Please note: When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s). Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

3 2