Here are some written comments on the "Consolidated Questions to URS Providers" for consideration in today's call: URS PROVIDERS 1. Communications, Q4 (page 1): also, renewals (as per various reports on the mailing list about issues with regards to that); 2. Communications, Q5 (page 1): no need for "BERO" acronym, as the term is only used once in the entire document. 3. Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain, Q5 (page 3): this one seems somewhat silly: "Are you following the URS Rules 4c"? Do you honestly expect anyone to answer with "No, you caught us!" Detection of non-compliance would obviously come from other sources, not the providers themselves. A better question is something like "What documentation/records do you maintain that provide proof of compliance with the relevant provider notifications to registrants?" (and then that could be audited/checked for actual compliance, rather than expecting anyone to answer with "No.") 4. The Response, Q11 (page 5): This appears to be a question targeted to registrants (i.e. those making responses), not Providers (i.e. length of time to respond) Providers should be there to be neutrally implementing the policies adopted, rather than opining as to whether the deadline to respond is long enough. I notice there's no balancing question asking "Should there be a limitations period, after which no complaint can be filed?" (i.e. statute of limitations, laches, etc.) in the "The Complaint" section. Saying that one should be "keeping in mind that the URS is supposed to operate with rapidity" also would affect the answers, thus creating a bias in the expected answers. 5. Examiner: additional questions: a) Has any Examiner ever been removed from the pool of Examiners for any reason? If so, why? What behaviours would disqualify/bar an Examiner from future cases? b) Is one permitted to continue be an Examiner if one has represented a client in a domain dispute (URS or UDRP) where there was a determination that the complaint was an abuse of the process? c) What is the procedure for assigning examiners? (i.e. how large is the pool of examiners, is it randomly assigned; some studies suggest a large number of cases are handled by a relatively small number of potential examiners) 6. In-Person Hearings, Q1 (page 8): I'd remove this question entirely. Or, if it's kept, this should open up far more serious due process concerns, like lack of cross-examination of witnesses, discovery, etc. 7. Default, Q1: This is really intended for registry operators, but even then, we know the answer already, namely that registry operators *don't* have such technical capability to prevent changing the contents of a site. Only the webhosting provider could conceivably do that (and that's typically not going to be the registry operator). 8. Default, Q2: Don't we have these stats already, from Berry Cobb's work? Why ask questions when all the cases are public and we should have those stats via the decisions? The more relevant modification might be how many attempted to submit *after* 6 months (i.e. where it would be outside the policy) 9. Examiner Determination: additional questions, (a) "Does the provider have clerks or other staff that 'ghost-write' decisions for Examiners, before the Examiner has made a determination independently, that the Examiner can simply sign their name to if they agree with it? 10. Effect of Court Proceedings, Q1 (page 10): also of interest is legal proceedings *after* a URS (not just before/during). 11. Others, Q3 (page 12): can get that answer from ICANN itself? Why ask the provider? 12. Others, Q4 (page 12): question seems incomplete. Suppose the answer is just "Yes." How do we use that as an answer to forumulate policy, if we don't know what those communications are?? Again, it seems like we should get the answers from ICANN itself. 13. Others, Q6 (page 12): Why is this targeted at Respondents, rather than Complainants (and also their counsel)? Registrants are *already* sanctioned, via suspension of the domain name. Also, what "process" are we talking about --- the URS process being "abused" (violating some rules of the URS procedure), or are we talking about abuse of the trademarks (i.e. cybersquatting) which is entirely separate from the *process* of dispute resolution. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:34 PM, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:

Thanks Ariel,

Further to the below, attached is a summary helpfully outlined by Berry and agreed on at the last meeting of the Documents Sub Team.

As is noted below, if we don’t get time to look at this tomorrow we can do so during the next call on 25-Apr.

You will see that there are a few references to providers/other Sub Teams, or guidance from the full WG, that may also be answered in the course of tomorrow’s call.

Kind regards,

Brian

*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2018 6:15 PM *To:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

[Message sent on behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs]

Dear WG members:

Please find attached documents generated by the Sub Teams on Practitioners, and on Providers. There is a short description of each document below. These documents will be the presented by the Sub Team Chairs and serve as the main focus of our discussion on tomorrow’s WG call (Wed, 18 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC), with an aim to approving final versions expeditiously so that they can be sent out and responded to as soon as possible.

*Providers Sub Team:*

*1. Consolidated Questions to URS Providers*

*2. Responses to Propose Questions to URS Providers: *

-- The document includes responses already received from Providers during ICANN61 presentation and follow-up emails, as well as responses provided by staff research per Sub Team requests;

-- Questions partially responded by Providers are also included in the document to show why these questions are directed to specific Provider(s)

*Practitioners Sub Team:* *URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective*

Considerable work has gone into these documents and we thank the Sub Teams for their time, effort and care. As Co-Chairs, we urge that edits be proposed with great care, as balances were carefully considered by the Sub Teams.

A separate URS Documents Sub Team Summary Report being edited by Brian Beckham will be provided shortly. Time-allowing, we will consider this Summary Report tomorrow, otherwise, on 4/25.

Best to all,

Philip & Kathy

*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, April 13, 2018 at 2:20 PM *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

Dear RPM PDP WG members,

Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 18 April 2018, scheduled for 1700 UTC:

Proposed Agenda:

1. Roll call (via WebEx and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Status reports - with specific recommendations for next steps and timeline - from the three URS Sub Teams (Documents, Practitioners, Providers) 3. Discussion/agreement on next steps for the three URS Sub Teams in view of the current Phase One timeline 4. Notice of agenda for 25 April meeting

Best regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry

[image: Colorful silhouette of a woman’s head, representing the theme of the World IP Day campaign.] <http://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/index.html?utm_source=wipomail&utm_...>

*Powering change: Women in innovation and creativity World Intellectual Property Day 2018 April 26 *wipo.int/ipday <http://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/index.html?utm_source=wipomail&utm_...> #worldipday

World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg