Just a quick comment with regards to footnotes (e.g. page 5), is it intended that this will be sent out to the practitioners as a PDF, that they'll respond in some non-standard manner? Or will it be turned into an online survey (e.g. SurveyMonkey, etc.) that they can fill out? If it's the latter, then you'll want to shift those footnotes into text that's directly below the relevant question. Also, on page 5, question 3, shouldn't there be something with regards to the response fees, appeal fees and/or other fees, instead of just filing fees by complainants? For example, at NAF, the types of fees are on page 9 of their supplemental rules: http://www.adrforum.com/resources/URS/URS%20Supplemental%20Rules.pdf Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

Please see the attached revised document “URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective” based on the comments and suggestions received during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April. Please review the document per the following action item highlighted below. The suggested edits are indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document.

Questions for URS Practitioners:

Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April (DONE-Attached) 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.

Please note:

When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s).

Thank you for your time and review!

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

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

Hi Julie, all, Just a few minor comments from me: - for Procedural Issues Q7 and 9, we were going to add (as is in the preceding section Q3) something like “…and leaving aside the result of the proceeding” - for Practical Issues Q6, it would be useful to list out the different timelines for a response and the various appeals options, rather than a reference to the Rules - those are: 14 days for a response (including a right to request 7 days extension), seeking de novo review (from default) for up to six months plus an option to request an additional 6 months, and filing an appeal for up to 14 days after default or a determination Thanks and have a great weekend! Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April Dear All, Please see the attached revised document “URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective” based on the comments and suggestions received during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April. Please review the document per the following action item highlighted below. The suggested edits are indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document. 1. Questions for URS Practitioners: * Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April (DONE-Attached) * 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. Please note: * When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the substance. * Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential version confusion caused by Word file(s). Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel [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.