Thanks Julie. I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever. Thanks! Jon
On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan,
Thanks so much for catching that! I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why. In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way.
I’ve also attached the file.
Kind regards, Julie
From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call. Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948>) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference). Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table?
Thanks Susan
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 <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 30 November 2017 16:51 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
Dear all,
The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows:
Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are: 1) Has it been used? 2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled? 3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences? 4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose? 5) How many managed to prevail? Action Items: Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.
Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed? Action Item: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated.
Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated? Action Item: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.
Revised Table: Action Item: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the 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.
Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director <URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>