Hello and thanks for the follow up and suggestion, Maxim. A link to the URS Technical Requirements was included on the last slide of the URS Rules presentation, and staff also took note of your comment during the call that the Working Group may wish to consider if some provisions in that document may more appropriately be placed elsewhere (e.g. the URS Rules themselves). We have, however, not added your suggestion to the URS document compilation as our understanding was that the compilation should reflect what had already been circulated as of last Wednesday. The staff understanding is also that you and other members’ suggestions on additional or specific topics be added for consideration as part of the URS review will be deliberated on by the Working Group as it decides on an agreed approach. To that end, we will bring your suggestion to the group’s attention at that time although you will hopefully be on the call to do so and to add further context. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 22:54 To: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans@adobe.com> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Following up on some action items Dear J. Scott, Do you think it is possible to add the text, which I asked to be added as a note during our last call into this document, but in form of the question (so we do not this forget to do it later in the process): Is it possible to move legal requirements from the document called "URS Technical Requirements" to "URS Rules" to avoid confusion? Rationale: The confusion was caused, and it was confirmed by our invited guest during the yesterday and also ICANN Compliance opened cases v.s. some of Registries due to lack of the text referred in URS Technical Requirements in their Registry Registrar Agreements. The URS Technical Requirements 1.0 file: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/tech-requirements-17oct13-en.pdf[newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_urs_tech-2Drequirements-2D17oct13-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=e1ui1rPpFoDChmgE30pVuWZ15yuq_AlZYUgK0000QEs&s=Tz7VEaaRLHOCVgFczJYNc0dQAiv-fSHCo9hjOarqiaw&e=> Bits of text I refer to: ------------ 4. Registry-Registrar Agreement: * • The Registry Operator MUST specify in the Registry-Registrar Agreement for the Registry Operator’s TLD that the Registrar MUST accept and process payments for the renewal of a domain name by a URS Complainant in cases where the URS Complainant prevailed. * • The Registry Operator MUST specify in the Registry-Registrar Agreement for the Registry Operator’s TLD that the Registrar MUST NOT renew a domain name to a URS Complainant who prevailed for longer than one year (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD). ------------ P.s: to my surprise I failed to find any references to it in the prepared document, despite the references to yesterday call in it. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Dec 14, 2017, at 06:31, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find attached: (1) a single document that compiles all the three current documents relating to the Working Group’s scoping of a review of the URS (i.e. a draft list of suggested topics based on the approach suggested on the 30 November call, an accompanying table cross-referencing the topic suggestions to their respective URS Charter questions, and the co-chairs’ joint statement on URS review); and (2) the slides on the URS Rules that were presented earlier today during the Working Group’s call with special guests Doug Isenberg and John Berryhill. For (1): we have included a note that the single document merely combines all the three documents that were circulated, without edits, and with the intent that this continue to be a Discussion Draft rather than authoritative documents agreed to by the Working Group. We hope this compilation will be useful to the group’s discussion on the next call on 20 December. For (2): we have added a footnote to the preliminary slide, based on Doug’s comment during the call earlier today, that while the URS is mandatory for all New gTLDs it has also been voluntarily adopted by some ccTLDs and “legacy” gTLDs. We will also post these documents – as well as the recording and transcript from the call today – on the Working Group wiki space as usual. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry _______________________________________________ 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