Hi Co-Chairs Paul and Zak,

I hope all is well. I have a question about the summary of URS Q#2. 

If I read it correctly, it suggests that we recommend to the WG that it modify the current URS #2 recommendation with a change that I don't recall our endorsing. 

As you know, URS Rec #2 had enormous support (65.5% as written):  URS Recommendation #2: "The Working Group recommends that URS Providers send notices to the Respondent by the required methods after the Registry or Registrar has forwarded the relevant WHOIS/RDDS data (including contact details of the Registered Name Holder) to the URS Providers." 

However, the public comment analysis suggests that the Subgroup endorsed a change to this recommendation: 

"PCRT Row #31: Support the recommendation as written, with the caveat that if the registry or registrar do not timely provide, or fail to provide, within the designated period of time, the underlying information regarding the Respondent, the URS provider shall then send the notice by the prescribed manner to the Respondent at the contact information that is then available."

But such a change would alter the way things are done now.  From our public comment summary: “If the Registry/Registrar failed to respond after several attempts, historically the Complainant gave FORUM the permission to hold off on commencing the case until the information was obtained. This practice seems consistent with that of WIPO as the UDRP Provider;”

I don’t recall our agreement to change the recommendation as written, and the current recommendation, as broadly supported, provided a certain flexibility that appears to be working well.  When did we endorse such a change?  Tx for the review!

Best, Kathy