Thanks to Mary for circulating the strawman and detailed cross-referencing paper. I have reviewed the documents and the transcript from the 30 November call, but I want to be sure I understand what the intention is. Would you mind clarifying that my understanding of what is being proposed is correct? The strawman says “a majority of attendees supported the idea that, instead of a detailed list of refined Charter questions, a shorter list of specific topics (based on the existing Charter questions and any new suggestions adopted) should be developed”. Am I right in thinking, therefore, that: · The existing charter questions have been reviewed to identify the range of topics that they identify as needing review: Complaint, Response, Standard of Proof, etc · Each of these topics will then be addressed by considering the five high level questions “has it been used”, “what was the original purpose, have there been unintended consequences”, etc · Using this approach we will not need to go through each charter question and revise it for sense and neutrality; rather that by conducting the exercise set out in bullets 1 and 2 our consideration will effectively ensure that we address the charter question and other issues on that topic from a neutral standpoint. Is that correct? Regardless of the answer above, I am unclear what is intended by Q5 “How many managed to prevail”? Could you please clarify. Many thanks 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 Mary Wong Sent: 01 December 2017 18:47 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Draft suggested list of URS topics (re: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call) Dear all, Please find attached: (1) a draft “strawman” list of topics for reviewing the URS, based on the first action item captured by staff from the last Working Group call (see below); and (2) an accompanying, more detailed table cross-referencing the list of suggested topics with their respective Charter questions and additional suggestions received to date. In accordance with the remainder of the action items from the call (see below), Working Group members are kindly invited to provide their feedback on the proposed approach to develop a list of URS review topics (action item #2), and review the draft list of suggested topics (action item #3). Staff would like to thank Heather Forrest, Council liaison from this Working Group, for her prompt review of an earlier version of the draft documents. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:51 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <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: 1. Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming) 2. WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach. 3. 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