When John McElwaine originally raised his suggestion in Puerto Rico that the URS be moved into phase 2 of our work, together with the UDRP, there were some concerns expressed about what the working group would spend our time doing, if we are not considering the URS, whilst we await the results of the planned data gathering survey on the Sunrise and TM Claims. I commented during the meeting that I believe there is work that the WG can usefully do, and indeed with respect to the data gathering survey I believe there is a potentially significant amount of work that we must do, irrespective of what happens with the URS, if that survey is to be as effective as possible in eliciting useful data. This work with respect to the data survey will need to be done over the coming weeks and months, and so, in my view, might necessitate pausing deliberations on the URS in any event. I thought it might be helpful for the purposes of the discussion tomorrow to explain my thoughts on this in a little more detail: Further action required with respect to the Sunrise and Claims data survey Before the surveys are deployed – ie between now and approx June, depending on appointment of the provider 1. Working with the survey provider to review and approve proposed survey questions, answer any queries the provider has and give additional guidance as required. Although the Data Subteam worked diligently over many weeks to develop guidance and notes for any survey provider, the group has always been clear that its task was not to attempt itself to draft effective survey questionnaires – this would be outside the area of expertise of the Data Sub members, and is within the expertise of the survey provider – but rather to explain what it is that the WG would like to achieve, the type of information we are seeking and from whom, in order to enable the survey provider to develop effective questionnaires. There will be further work required, therefore, in liaising with the survey provider when appointed. This could be expected to include: · At a very minimum, it will be necessary to review and approve the draft questionnaires produced by the survey provider, aimed at the various different target groups. This final sign-off might be something which the WG as a whole should do, rather than delegating to the Data Sub. · The likelihood is that, prior to this, there will need to be substantial engagement with the survey provider as they develop and finalise the draft questionnaires. This is an essential part of the process. Past experiences, for example of those who worked on the INTA Impact Study, is that this process involves 3-6 months of survey design and beta testing. My understanding is that INTA’s design and testing period was compressed in order to meet established CCT-RT time lines. It is possible that this compression contributed to design flaws that deterred participants from completing the survey once they entered the testing environment. In order for our RPMs data gathering exercise to be effective, therefore it is important to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the survey is well designed and tested to ensure maximum results. 2. Working with the survey provider to help identify survey targets from the various groups. The Data Subteam discussed the identification of targets. Whilst the view of the group was that the survey provider would likely have ideas about the best ways to source appropriate survey targets, we also felt that input from the working group may assist with this. 3. Another task that would require WG input is how to socialize the survey and the data. A pre-survey communications plan will need to be developed in order to publicize the survey to potential participants encourage maximum participation. Consideration may also be given to a post survey communications plan depending on how ICANN and the community may wish to socialize the results beyond incorporating them into WG reports. After the surveys have been conducted 4. Reviewing initial draft report from the survey provider, identifying questions and/or areas lacking clarity, potentially identifying matters which need further work before finalisation of the report by the survey provider Other tasks which the WG could undertake now There are various tasks which could potentially be dealt with now, since they do not necessarily depend on the outcome of the data survey. These could include (non-exhaustive examples): 1. Preparing the section of our draft Report dealing with the PDDRP 2. Developing an enhanced Sunrise DRP to try to address gaming of the “THE” type discussed in the WG 3. Conclude discussions on the TMCH such that we have actual recommendations for our draft Report. For example, a strawpoll was conducted regarding the marks which have a device/design element. This was always expressed to be non-determinative, however having run through the results of the poll the WG discussion ended without reaching any formal conclusions and we moved on to the Sunrise and Claims. 4. Working on revising the Claims Notice language. I don’t believe there is any disagreement in the WG that the Claims language is complex and would benefit from a re-draft. I believe that a start could be made on this now. Looking forward to discussing John’s proposal tomorrow. regards Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: 01 May 2018 15:49 To: julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC WG members are strongly encouraged to review the text of John’s original email and the Google doc of comments, both links provided below, prior to the call. If we do not conclude discussion tomorrow there should be time on the May 9th call to do so; if there is a decision to send any communication to Council on this matter this is in advance of the document filing deadline for its May meeting. As Kathy and I observed in our joint email of April 6th, John’s “proposal raises multiple issues, including: · Amendment of the WG Charter to move the URS review and recommendations to Phase II · Amendment of the WG Charter to define issues that must, may, and may not be addressed · Adjustment of the WG Charter to provide additional guidance on the scope of URS and UDRP Review · Adjustment of the WG leadership structure for Phase II · Potential pause in the start of Phase II keyed to GDPR impact understanding These are all major issues and we encourage WG members to comment on all of them. “ 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-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 10:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC Dear RPM PDP WG members, Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 02 May 2018, scheduled for 1700 UTC. Times are proposed as estimates and may be adjusted. Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest (1 minute) 2. Final Status of Questions for Practitioners and Providers (9 minutes) 3. Report from the Documents Sub Team (20 minutes) 4. Discussion on URS Phase II proposal (59 minutes) See John McElwaine’s original email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002857.html and a Google Sheet with the proposal as tab one, and the responses as tab two at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1apbVrFayn_vbPfhKDpjYs66iBWjvwhWFGZbu... 5. Notice of agenda for 09 May meeting (1 minute) Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry