I believe Griffin is correct. As I recall, there was significant discussion around what constituted “predominant language” so the group agreed to rely on “registration agreement language”. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 10:53 AM To: Griffin Barnett <Griffin@Winterfeldt.law>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; Corwin Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Edits and updates Many thanks, Griffin. That may indeed be the case and I do not specifically recollect. Wonder if anyone has any other perspectives or recollections Zak From: Griffin Barnett <Griffin@Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Griffin@Winterfeldt.law> > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 11:50 AM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com <mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> >; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> >; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> ; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org> >; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> >; Corwin Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> >; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> >; John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com <mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com> > Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Edits and updates Hi Zak and all, My understanding was that Rec 4 as drafted correctly captures the intent to supplant the “predominant language” translation requirement with the “registration agreement language” translation requirement, consistent with the registration agreement language as default controlling language for proceedings rule under Rec 3. Best, Griffin _____ <https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20006 griffin@winterfeldt.law <mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 9:15 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> >; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> ; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org> >; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> >; Corwin Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> >; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> >; John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com <mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com> > Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Edits and updates Dear fellow WG members, I note that URS Final Recommendation #3 was incorporated into the draft Report as per our recent deliberations; URS Final Recommendation #3 The Working Group recommends that the URS Rules be amended to incorporate in full Rule #11 of the UDRP Rules regarding “Language of Proceedings” I also note that URS Final Recommendation #4 appears to now refer to having the URS Notice of Complaint be in the language of the Registration Agreement as opposed to the predominant language of the registrant: URS Final Recommendation #4 The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 4(b) and URS Procedure para 4.2 be amended to require the Provider to transmit the Notice of Complaint to the Respondent in English and translate it into the language of the Registration Agreement. On one hand this can be viewed as consistent with Recommendation #3 (above), but on the other hand I am uncertain whether WG’s resolution was to cease translating the actual Notice into the predominant language, or to continue to do so but have the subsequent proceeding be in the language of the registrant agreement. Maybe this is something worth discussing on our next call if there is sufficient interest amongst the WG members and time to do so. Zak Muscovitch From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 6:19 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> ; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org> >; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> >; Corwin Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> >; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> >; John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com <mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com> > Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Edits and updates Hi All, Attached please find my proposed edits to the Background section of our report. We had a little more interaction with the EPDP report than noted -- and went past the summary wave table to the actual EPDP recommendations to determine that there was no conflict between them and our WG recommendations. I've proposed revisions to the background text to show this process with the steps involved. As a WG, we certainly did our due diligence on this important task! Best and have a good weekend, Kathy -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
