Thanks Julie, As to the call for input in the next 48 hours, based inter alia on arguments raised on last night's call, my own view is that it does not seem productive for staff -- at present -- to proceed (or continue) with URS data extraction. Before time and precious resources are spent on data extraction (not to mention analysis), there should be agreement from WG members as to what should be extracted and to what end, e.g., producing a recommendation as to the minimum elements a URS determination should include. As to that particular end however, frankly, it should be possible to already agree on such elements now (several have already been mentioned on the last two calls, such as the trademark at issue and domain name use). An email from George Kirikos perfectly underscores the reason for some of the arguments raised on the last several calls; there, he said: "It's possible that the first URS was wrongly decided using the basis of "non-use" as proof of "bad faith use" (which the 2nd URS correctly rejected), but we don't know for sure given the lack of any detail/reasoning in the first URS decision." On the one hand, this is merely one view as to whether a URS case was decided correctly, to which there may very well be a counter view. On the other hand, and I think this gets to the concerns being raised, it is effectively an attempt to rewrite a well-established domain name law doctrine established in thousands of UDRP cases and now being applied in the URS context -- and yet ostensibly ?this flows from assessing whether a panel correctly applied the burden of proof. Thanks for considering, Brian ________________________________ From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 9:01 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 07 February Working Group Call Dear All, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 07 February 2018 (1800 UTC) are as follows. 1. Staff to recirculate the latest version of the Compilation of Current URS Discussion Documents (see attached the latest version which was updated from the meeting on 01 February); 2. NEXT 48 HOURS: Staff seeks direction from the Working Group on whether they should proceed with data extraction for all URS cases, some URS cases, or no URS cases. If some URS cases, then staff can extract data based on specific data elements to be agreed by the Working Group (e.g. types of cases for which such data extraction is deemed needed). 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. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director