Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Staff action item on IRT/STI discussions (URS background)
Dear all, Just a note to confirm that staff will look into the background discussions that led to the recommendations from the IRT and the STI, as we actually already had an action item from the Documents Sub Team to look into one or two similar background questions, also for the URS. We will revert to the WG once we have more information. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink@amazon.com> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 05:15 To: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>, "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC Hi Rebecca, I no longer work for Forum, so I’m unfamiliar with their current pricing in relation to other providers, but at the time, that was the rationale for why the bidding providers should be able to charge less. Again, not opining substantively, just raising some historical context. Best, Kristine From: Tushnet, Rebecca [mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 2:06 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>; BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC Thanks for this, Kristine. As to your third question, does ADR Forum charge less than the other providers for providing less reasoning? Relatedly, I didn't understand my suggestion to be asking for "UDRP level work," especially given the mandate of the URS to do easy cases. It seems to me that if the case is not easy, then the examiner can say that the record doesn't allow resolution of the URS elements in the complainant's favor. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 4:47:08 PM To: Tushnet, Rebecca; BECKHAM, Brian; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC Hi everyone, I apologize for missing the call. I wanted to follow up on this statement, which I’ve trimmed from Prof. Tushnet’s email, to reduce the message length.
My own takeaway from the research is that the URS is generally functioning well for easy cases, but there is a serious issue of lack of reasoning and thus lack of information in a significant subset of cases. Following up on a question asked last time, Alex separated the cases by provider and found that examiners only copied and pasted in ADR Forum. All ADNDRC and MFSD cases had at least some explanation provided.
I hope that our STI/IRT members and maybe even staff, can pull more from their collective brains on this, but I here is my recollection of how the reasoning question went down (full disclosure: I was with Forum at the time and substantially wrote their RFI to be a URS provider). --STI created a “tapestry” of RPMs and created a “light/fast” URS that was for such straight-forward cases that the complaint and decision should just be tick-boxes. --community outrage at exclusive use of tick boxes so, --IRT said it must NOT be tick box-only. The Examiner must have a chance to make remarks. There was no community requirement that there be reasoning, merely the option. --Indeed, in light of the anticipated low fees, it was anticipated that the Examiners would do a quick review and if the complainant didn’t quickly win on its face, they should have the option to go back and file a UDRP for a deeper look. I request correction if I’m wrong, but, if I’m right, then we need to back up and determine: 1. What’s the harm in the level of reasoning in URS decisions currently (recall this is always our threshold question – what is broken)? 2. Would enforcing more “reasoning” solve the problem? 3. Is the WG prepared to re-assess the fees charged to parties if a more UDRP-level of work will be required? I have no opinion on the answers to the questions, but just wanted to remind everyone that a pretty bright, diverse group actually spent a lot of time debating tick-box vs reasoning and ended up deciding reasoning should be optional, so we shouldn’t *assume* that “the more reasoning, the better.” Best, Kristine
Thanks Kristine and Rebecca for these questions, Mary and staff, to hopefully save you some research, my recollection is that the IRT (and STI) recommended that the URS be “in the 300 – 500 range”. Further to Kristine’s questions – and again recalling that the Documents Subteam suggested the possibility of an “examiner’s guide” to set out the core elements that should be included in URS determinations (e.g., the mark, domain name, website use, parties’ names, defenses, etc.) – it may be useful to ask whether Prof Tushnet’s research could assist in considering what core elements (if any) the WG wishes to suggest for a template “examiner’s guide” for URS determinations. Best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 4:01 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Staff action item on IRT/STI discussions (URS background) Dear all, Just a note to confirm that staff will look into the background discussions that led to the recommendations from the IRT and the STI, as we actually already had an action item from the Documents Sub Team to look into one or two similar background questions, also for the URS. We will revert to the WG once we have more information. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink@amazon.com> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 05:15 To: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>, "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC Hi Rebecca, I no longer work for Forum, so I’m unfamiliar with their current pricing in relation to other providers, but at the time, that was the rationale for why the bidding providers should be able to charge less. Again, not opining substantively, just raising some historical context. Best, Kristine From: Tushnet, Rebecca [mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 2:06 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>; BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC Thanks for this, Kristine. As to your third question, does ADR Forum charge less than the other providers for providing less reasoning? Relatedly, I didn't understand my suggestion to be asking for "UDRP level work," especially given the mandate of the URS to do easy cases. It seems to me that if the case is not easy, then the examiner can say that the record doesn't allow resolution of the URS elements in the complainant's favor. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 4:47:08 PM To: Tushnet, Rebecca; BECKHAM, Brian; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC Hi everyone, I apologize for missing the call. I wanted to follow up on this statement, which I’ve trimmed from Prof. Tushnet’s email, to reduce the message length.
My own takeaway from the research is that the URS is generally functioning well for easy cases, but there is a serious issue of lack of reasoning and thus lack of information in a significant subset of cases. Following up on a question asked last time, Alex separated the cases by provider and found that examiners only copied and pasted in ADR Forum. All ADNDRC and MFSD cases had at least some explanation provided.
I hope that our STI/IRT members and maybe even staff, can pull more from their collective brains on this, but I here is my recollection of how the reasoning question went down (full disclosure: I was with Forum at the time and substantially wrote their RFI to be a URS provider). --STI created a “tapestry” of RPMs and created a “light/fast” URS that was for such straight-forward cases that the complaint and decision should just be tick-boxes. --community outrage at exclusive use of tick boxes so, --IRT said it must NOT be tick box-only. The Examiner must have a chance to make remarks. There was no community requirement that there be reasoning, merely the option. --Indeed, in light of the anticipated low fees, it was anticipated that the Examiners would do a quick review and if the complainant didn’t quickly win on its face, they should have the option to go back and file a UDRP for a deeper look. I request correction if I’m wrong, but, if I’m right, then we need to back up and determine: 1. What’s the harm in the level of reasoning in URS decisions currently (recall this is always our threshold question – what is broken)? 2. Would enforcing more “reasoning” solve the problem? 3. Is the WG prepared to re-assess the fees charged to parties if a more UDRP-level of work will be required? I have no opinion on the answers to the questions, but just wanted to remind everyone that a pretty bright, diverse group actually spent a lot of time debating tick-box vs reasoning and ended up deciding reasoning should be optional, so we shouldn’t *assume* that “the more reasoning, the better.” Best, Kristine 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.
participants (2)
-
BECKHAM, Brian -
Mary Wong