Dear Dawahi Staff’s understanding is that both preexistent decisions and hypotheticals could be useful in this case. It would then before the Working Group to consider all of these for whether or not they should be included in the final version sent to compliance. Kind regards, David From: Dawahi Khouloud <khoulouddaouahi@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 01:02 To: David Tait <david.tait@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and Actions from the Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on 17 August 2016 A question @David when it comes to action '' i. WG members to provide scenarios to illustrate bad faith/abusive conduct in question to ICANN Compliance by next week's call" I think it is very important indeed .So should we look for ambigious situation regarding this matter in some preexistant arbitration decisions or conceive a situation ? On Aug 17, 2016 7:55 PM, "David Tait" <david.tait@icann.org> wrote: Dear all, Here are the staff notes and action items from the Working Group (WG) call held earlier today. For your convenience, we have categorized them into four main issues, as you’ll see below: these are (1) TMCH provider questions and proposed community survey, (2) Questions for ICANN Compliance, (3) Issues/Concerns/Suggestions regarding the TM-PDDRP and (4) the next meeting. 1) TMCH Provider questions and community survey ACTION: WG members to review document of provider questions and community Survey previously circulated by MW by CoB Friday; 2) Questions for ICANN Compliance The WG considered questions to be submitted to ICANN Compliance. ACTION: i. WG members to provide scenarios to illustrate bad faith/abusive conduct in question to ICANN Compliance by next week's call; ii. Staff to prepare revised questions for compliance in relation to the handling of complaints from third-parties regarding abusive conduct; iii. WG Volunteers to review existing, publicly available metrics published by ICANN Compliance. 3) Consideration of Issues/Concerns/Suggestions regarding the TM-PDDRP Doodle poll shows no support for continuing discussion regarding burden of proof at this point, however, in the event of new concerns emerging or a demand to revisit the topic arising it would be possible to revisit this topic; Remedies – Consideration of this issue is to be paused until more input has been received from the Community survey i. ACTION: Staff to prepare a specific question to the registries regarding vagueness of remedies to be sent alongside other requests for information for consideration by WG Optional Mediation- The WG considered that there was a need to convene a sub-team to review the issue of Optional mediation and put forward an outline proposal for consideration by WG. ii. ACTION: (Staff to issue call for volunteers on the list before next meeting) 4) Next meeting The next meeting of the WG to take place at 2100 UTC Wednesday 24 August ACTION: WG members to be prepared to discuss Analysis Group report. Kind regards, David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait@icann.org www.icann.org _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg