New subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 18 April 2018

April 18, 2018

      Dear All,

Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the Working Group call held on 18 April 2018 (1700 UTC).  Staff have posted 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

Action Items:

Questions for URS Practitioners: 
Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April; 
WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April;
Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April.
Questions for Providers:
Staff will recirculate the documents for review on 18 April;
WG members will provide comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April;
Staff will produce a redlined document for the Sub Team to review by Monday, 23 April;
Sub Team will provide input/feedback on the new suggestions/edits by Tuesday, 24 April;
Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April.
Report from the Documents Sub Team:
Staff will recirculate the report on 18 April;
WG members will review and provide comments on the list.

Notes:

1. Sub Team from Practitioners:

-- Moving forward on the questions for practitioners and providers does not affect the discussion concerning whether to move URS to Phase 1.

-- Discussion of the final form of the questions will extend to the next call.

-- Long process to get here: We presented an interim report in Puerto Rico.  Decided in the Sub Team that we would do a smaller group of volunteers to get the questions in good working order.

-- Goal was to make this a document that was manageable for the party that is receiving the questions to encourage them to respond.  Need to balance that with ensuring we covered topics.

-- Everyone was very satisfied with what the Sub Team put together.

General Questions:

Question 3: Overall, leaving aside the result of the proceeding, how was your experience with the process of a URS proceeding?

-- Collect information on which provider you used.  Indicate if you are the complainant or the respondent.

-- It should also capture which provider was used for that proceeding/appeal, as the experience might differ across providers.

-- We will track who is responding; staff would be able to determine if it is coming from complainant/rep or respondent/rep.)  

Procedural Issues:

Question 4: Are you aware of any issues the Respondent may have had regarding the receipt of the notice of the proceeding?  

-- the complainant wouldn’t necessary know.  Maybe "were there any issues" could be written as "any difficulties"  

-- That was asked to the providers in the other PDF, but it's more suitable for registrants/URS lawyers.

Question 5: When involved as Respondent or its representative in a URS proceeding did you experience any issues with receiving notice of the proceeding?

-- Instead of “you” change to “respondent”.  

-- May be important to include a caveat that this wouldn’t include any delay from the respondent delaying in sending to his representative.

Question 6: Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision?

-- Add: “If so why?” 

Question 7: If yes to question 6, from the choices below how would you characterize your experience with the appeal process after a URS proceeding?

-- Collect information on which provider you used.  Indicate if you are the complainant or the respondent.

-- It should also capture which provider was used for that proceeding/appeal, as the experience might differ across providers.

-- We will track who is responding; staff would be able to determine if it is coming from complainant/rep or respondent/rep.)  

Substantive Issues:

Question 3: Do you believe that the URS is being used for the types of cases for which it was intended, namely, clear cases of abuse?

-- Question was not intended to deal with whether the panel has handled it appropriately.

Practical Issues:

Question 1: Do you believe the current mechanisms for proving use in a URS case are adequate?

-- Include a link to the current mechanisms for proving use.

Question 3: Do you believe the filing fee for a URS is appropriate?

-- Add a text box: “Please suggest what you think is an appropriate filing fee.” 

Question 6: Do you believe the existing time frames for submitting filings in a URS proceeding are appropriate?

-- Include a link to the existing time frames.

Other:

Question 1: If you chose not to file a URS in a particular matter, what was the reason? Please choose from the following options:

-- Isn't the question limited to scope to circumstances when the URS is not chosen?

-- Allow in each section to provide additional comments/general comments.  Could add a text box to collect general thoughts on URS, although not sure how we could organize/use these responses.  

Can we add a question about the general applicability of the URS, e.g. should be extended to all gTLDs?"?  What is the benefit of asking the practitioners this question?  This is something the WG will consider.  

-- We could ask, in the  “If the URS was available in all gTLDs, would you use it?  Why or why not?” 

-- Look into whether that feature of the mechanism – whether there is value to change it from the practitioners’ perspective.  

-- Do we want to go into this now?  Trying to get practitioners’ feedback on using URS.  May not be able to get a useful response to that question.

General Discussion:

Does not ask how many cases they brought in terms of cybersquatting.  How many were diverted to the URS?  What is the primary dispute mechanism?  What a practitioner decided to do with their clients trademarks and how have they proceeded.  

-- We do get into whether or not you chose the RPM, but tried to avoid getting into attorney-client issues.  That is a sensitive issue.  

-- That is really an issue if you look at people who have filed UDRP.  This is meant to go to URS practitioners.  

-- If we are going into what they have done in terms of court filings then it is a skewed area since you don’t have everyone saying what they have done or not done.

-- It’s a good concept but no way to make a connection except for on a case-by-case basis.

-- Not appropriate. This survey is for URS practitioners not all practitioners -- e.g. those who only filed UDRPs  or court cases.

2. Next Steps:

-- The Practitioners Sub Team can continue to work with staff to develop the survey, Forum has volunteered to help us reach the practitioners – who and how to reach people.  Need to be cognizant not to reveal who are the respondents.

-- Practitioners Questions: Hold open changes to the questions until next week’s call.

-- Providers Questions: Review the questions and get it to the WG list by COB Friday, 20 April so it can be considered by the Sub Team members on the list and then staff will provide an amended document next week.

-- Documents Sub Team: Has a few questions to refer to the Providers Sub Team that may already have been considered.

-- Want to get Questions to practitioners and providers by the first week of May so that we can have results back in late May or early June so we can have informed discussions in Panama City.

3. Co-Chair:

-- Brian Beckham has indicated his interested and is preparing a statement of qualifications.  

-- Time pressure with Council because the GNSO Council will need to approve in May.

Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 18 April 2018

Julie Hedlund

McAuley, David

BECKHAM, Brian

Justine Chew

BECKHAM, Brian

Berry Cobb

tags

participants (5)