Thanks for circulating the agenda Mary. I do not believe that we completed the discussion on the Co-Chairs Statement on the last call, so perhaps we could also include that please. In that regard I would like to raise a concern with the 4 questions that the Co-Chairs proposed “for WG review and discussion” (ie the 4 bullets in the penultimate paragraph), and specifically with bullet 3, which proposes that we investigate the application of the clear and convincing evidence standard and that in doing so “This will require a qualitative review of a statistically significant percentage of URS decisions”. It seems to me that this proposes that the WG members should re-open a number of URS decisions and effectively seek to apply our own judgment in place of that of the appointed panellist. I would of course be happy to be corrected if that is not what the Co-Chairs intend. If my understanding is correct, this goes much further than our Charter envisages – our role is to review the effectiveness of the RPMs and whether they collectively fulfil the purpose for which they were created, not to effectively take on the role of an appeals body in cases which have not been appealed, or that of ICANN Compliance. It also raises the concern that that we would presumably be seeking to reconsider cases without all the underlying information that was available to the panellist, since this is not published. A reasonable and proportionate approach, which would be consistent with our approach on the TMCH, would be to consider the URS providers’ practices, in terms of what instructions and/or training are provided to panellists about the URS and its evidence standard. A consideration of the extent to which decisions have been overturned on appeal on the basis of the application of the incorrect standard would also be something we could consider. I propose that bullet 3 be amended, including the deletion of the Co-Chairs Note, to read: · How have the URS providers ensured that the “clear and convincing evidence” standard has been applied. Thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom 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: 16 January 2018 18:35 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 17 January; no call on 24 January Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call tomorrow, 17 January, scheduled for 1800 UTC: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Staff presentation – updated data on URS cases (follow up from initial staff presentation at ICANN60 – see attached updated tables and charts) 3. Working Group discussion – standardized questions for each of the listed URS review topics (see updated URS Discussion Document, circulated on Friday 12 January and posted here as a 12 January update: https://community.icann.org/x/tAxyB) 4. Next steps/next meeting Please note that there will not be a Working Group call next week (24 January), as the staff team will all be attending the Policy Department’s annual strategic planning meeting and will not be available to support a call. The next Working Group call after this week’s 17 January call will therefore be on 1 February at 0400 UTC (for North/Latin American members, this will be the evening/night of 31 January). Finally, and as a reminder, please send us any suggestions you may have on potential respondents to our upcoming Request for Proposals relating to the data collection survey work on Sunrise and Trademark Claims. Cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 18:32 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 10 January Working Group Call Hello everyone, Following up from the first action item from the Working Group call this past Wednesday, please find attached the updated draft URS Discussion Document. The document includes the suggestions made on the call for which no objections were received; staff has included notes on these in the table to facilitate your review of the discussion. Staff continues to work on the “parking lot” document that will contain all other suggestions made after the ICANN60 sessions and will circulate that when it is ready. We hope that both documents, along with the session and call recordings and transcripts, will reflect the Working Group’s deliberations to date on scoping a review of the URS. 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: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 16:47 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 10 January Working Group Call Dear all, The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 10 January 2018 are as follows: 1. Staff will update the Compilation of Current URS Discussion Documents based on the suggested edits from the 10 January meeting. 2. Staff will work with the Co-Chairs to develop a historical timeline for development of the URS in the New gTLD Program. Staff will post to the wiki space the action items and 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