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

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 09 May 2018 at 1200 UTC
by Paul Keating June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Hi Mary, Given the extensive emails that were exchanged (all of which were in favor of his nomination) can we dispense with the 20-30 mins allocated to #2 (or at least streamline it? I would really like to focus on #4. So I suggest a revision to the order as follows: Draft Agenda: 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest (1 minute) 2. Co-Chair Nomination: > 1. Q&A with Brian Beckham > 2. Discussion > 3. Decision on Co-Chair Nomination (10 minutes total) 3. Presentation of Research from Rebecca Tushnet (30-40 minutes) 4. discussion of URS Phase II proposal (tentative-if necessary/30 minutes) 5. Status of meetings for 16 and 23 May (1 minute) Paul Keating From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 3:41 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 09 May 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, 09 May 2018, scheduled for 1700 UTC. Times are proposed as > estimates and may be adjusted. > > Staff notes that the GDD Summit and RightsCon conflict with the WG meeting on > the 16th, and the INTA meeting conflicts with the WG meeting the 23rd, so it > will be very helpful if WG members could indicate their availability for those > dates. > > Draft Agenda: > 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest (1 minute) > 2. Co-Chair Nomination: >> 1. Q&A with Brian Beckham >> 2. Discussion >> 3. Decision on Co-Chair Nomination (20-29 minutes total) > 3. Continued discussion of URS Phase II proposal (tentative-if necessary/30 > minutes) > 4. Presentation of Research from Rebecca Tushnet (30 minutes) > 5. Status of meetings for 16 and 23 May (1 minute) > > 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

10 16

Update Re: RPM PDP WG Meetings for June 2018
by Julie Hedlund June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is an update of the Working Group and Sub Team meetings anticipated for June: 1. Monday, 18 June, 1600-1700 UTC (12:00-13:00 EDT): The TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registrants and potential registrants. 2. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting, 17:00-17:30 UTC (13:00-13:30 EDT) – Note shorter duration: a. Status of TMCH Data Sub Team Work (5 minutes) b. Status of URS Practitioner, Provider, and Documents Sub Team Work (10 minutes) c. ICANN62 Sessions Update (15 minutes) 3. Wednesday, 20 June, 17:30-18:30 UTC (13:30-14:30 EDT): The TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for potential registrants. 4. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): a. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: 1) Presentation from URS Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results; 2) Update from URS Documents Sub Team; 3) Update from TMCH Data Sub Team b. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues c. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: URS Providers Sub Team Working Session (subject to availability of Providers) Please note that the programs for the three sessions may change, depending on the availability of the URS Providers and the duration of the presentation from the URS Practitioners Sub Team on the survey results. When the Panama City ICANN62 sessions are finalized, staff will resend to the Working Group the links to the three sessions (which will include details for remote participation, including Adobe Connect. Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
by George Kirikos June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Hi folks, I draw folks' attention to the page at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today. No other changes were made. I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal. This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous. This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

11 22

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
by Nahitchevansky, Georges June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

Not really Volker. If you go down that path then you will have literally hundreds of cases where parties defaulted entered into settlements etc all of which is not useful in a jurisprudencial way. Again the idea of the WIPO list is to have a list of cases that are meaningful -- i.e. those that were litigated by participating parties to a decision. Those cases are useful to practitioners, complainants and respondents as they provide insights as to how courts view and deal with particular types of domain name cases. Such decisions help parties determine whether or not they should pursue a matter in the first place as it provides guideposts as to what the law might be on a number of specific issues (e.g. what is a fair use, how far does free speech extend over domain names, what is bad faith, what is reverse domain name hijacking, etc.). If you really feel like every case ever filed over UDRP decisions or domain names, regardless of the outcome, should be on a list somewhere, then you should have ICANN create such a list and have it on its website. I don't think it will be very meaningful or useful as it will be full of cases that had no real adjudication of the merits and no learning on any issues. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 12:30 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Depends. Maybe the other party chose not to participate as it knew it had no chance. Or it did not want to risk the costs. Or it never knew. Speculating on the reasons why a party did not appear is futile. All that counts is that the UDRP decision was not upheld. Volker Am 07.06.2018 um 18:23 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: > George K > > I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settle > ments, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of George > Kirikos > Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM > To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? > > Hi folks, > > I draw folks' attention to the page at: > > http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ > > which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. > Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today. > > No other changes were made. > > I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal. > > This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous. > > This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > > ________________________________ > > Confidentiality Notice: > This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. > > ________________________________ > > ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

ICANN62: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings’ team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN62 Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> Step 1 – Create a profile and your personalized ICANN62 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to “My Schedule” go to Export. 1. Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. 2. Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. * For Outlook calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/81449-moving-your-schedu…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> * For Google calendars: http://support.pathable.com/knowledgebase/articles/1313-moving-your-schedul…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__support.pathable.com_kn…> Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule<https://62.schedule.icann.org/> and on the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ>) will provide audio streaming only Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/6QQFBQ> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN62” in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Panama to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Possible Technical Bug in URS implementations
by George Kirikos June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018

Hi folks, I believe I've uncovered a technical bug in the URS implementation. Does anyone here know the best method to report it? It might require a policy change (due to the ambiguity of the policy's requirements on providers) or updated documentation, as well as implementation changes by providers, in order to fix it. The bug isn't manifesting itself at the moment, but is almost certain to be visible to others in a short time. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 5

ICANN62: Schedule of RPM PDP Working Group Meetings
by Julie Hedlund June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the schedule and links for the RPM PDP Working Group meetings at ICANN62: Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full RPM PDP WG Meetings (with remote participation in the links below): Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30-12:00 (Panama City UTC-5): RPM PDP WG Meeting Session 1: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results see: https://62.schedule.icann.org/meetings/699479 Thursday, 28 June, 09:00-10:15 (Panama City UTC-5): RPM PDP WG Meeting Session 2: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results see: https://62.schedule.icann.org/meetings/699483 Thursday, 28 June, 10:30-12:00 (Panama City UTC-5): RPM PDP WG Meeting Session 3: Discussion on Procedural Issues see: https://62.schedule.icann.org/meetings/699484 Please also see the full ICANN62 schedule at: https://62.schedule.icann.org/meetings. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan
by Julie Hedlund June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Staff action item on IRT/STI discussions (URS background)
by Mary Wong June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

Dear all, Just a note to confirm that staff will look into the background discussions that led to the recommendations from the IRT and the STI, as we actually already had an action item from the Documents Sub Team to look into one or two similar background questions, also for the URS. We will revert to the WG once we have more information. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 05:15 To: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu>, "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC Hi Rebecca, I no longer work for Forum, so I’m unfamiliar with their current pricing in relation to other providers, but at the time, that was the rationale for why the bidding providers should be able to charge less. Again, not opining substantively, just raising some historical context. Best, Kristine From: Tushnet, Rebecca [mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 2:06 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink(a)amazon.com>; BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC Thanks for this, Kristine. As to your third question, does ADR Forum charge less than the other providers for providing less reasoning? Relatedly, I didn't understand my suggestion to be asking for "UDRP level work," especially given the mandate of the URS to do easy cases. It seems to me that if the case is not easy, then the examiner can say that the record doesn't allow resolution of the URS elements in the complainant's favor. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink(a)amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 4:47:08 PM To: Tushnet, Rebecca; BECKHAM, Brian; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC Hi everyone, I apologize for missing the call. I wanted to follow up on this statement, which I’ve trimmed from Prof. Tushnet’s email, to reduce the message length. >>> My own takeaway from the research is that the URS is generally functioning well for easy cases, but there is a serious issue of lack of reasoning and thus lack of information in a significant subset of cases. Following up on a question asked last time, Alex separated the cases by provider and found that examiners only copied and pasted in ADR Forum. All ADNDRC and MFSD cases had at least some explanation provided. I hope that our STI/IRT members and maybe even staff, can pull more from their collective brains on this, but I here is my recollection of how the reasoning question went down (full disclosure: I was with Forum at the time and substantially wrote their RFI to be a URS provider). --STI created a “tapestry” of RPMs and created a “light/fast” URS that was for such straight-forward cases that the complaint and decision should just be tick-boxes. --community outrage at exclusive use of tick boxes so, --IRT said it must NOT be tick box-only. The Examiner must have a chance to make remarks. There was no community requirement that there be reasoning, merely the option. --Indeed, in light of the anticipated low fees, it was anticipated that the Examiners would do a quick review and if the complainant didn’t quickly win on its face, they should have the option to go back and file a UDRP for a deeper look. I request correction if I’m wrong, but, if I’m right, then we need to back up and determine: 1. What’s the harm in the level of reasoning in URS decisions currently (recall this is always our threshold question – what is broken)? 2. Would enforcing more “reasoning” solve the problem? 3. Is the WG prepared to re-assess the fees charged to parties if a more UDRP-level of work will be required? I have no opinion on the answers to the questions, but just wanted to remind everyone that a pretty bright, diverse group actually spent a lot of time debating tick-box vs reasoning and ended up deciding reasoning should be optional, so we shouldn’t *assume* that “the more reasoning, the better.” Best, Kristine

2 1

REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 4, 2018

June 4, 2018

Dear RPM PDP WG members, Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 30 May 2018, scheduled for 1200 UTC – note the usual earlier time for the last meeting of the month. WG members are encouraged to review the data at the link below to prepare for the discussion on agenda item 2. Draft Agenda, 30 May 2018, 1200 UTC: Review agenda/SOIs; Discuss what quantitative data from Rebecca’s research can be used to address Documents Sub Team questions about the 250 “response received” and 58 “respondent prevailed” cases, See: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1dodxsqkauqp1vr/URS%20Case%20Review%20-%20Final.x…; ICANN62 Planning; AOB Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

4 6