[Gnso-rpm-documents] Actions and Notes: URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 11 July 17:00 UTC

Wed Jul 11 20:04:58 UTC 2018

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the URS Documents Sub Team call held on 11 July 2018 (1700 UTC).  Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording.  Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018+Meetings.

Please also see the attached referenced documents.

Best regards,

Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

Action Items:

WG members should review the Consolidated URS Discussion Document,  especially column 5 – Data Sources – and note whether there are data sources that haven’t been identified, or whether the data raise issues concerning the URS.  For example: sub bullet on page 4 on The Complaint (A) -- staff hasn't done any analysis on types of marks.  Does it need to occur, if so, and how?
David McAuley volunteered to work with Berry Cobb to review the 10 de novo review cases.

Notes:

Reminder: The suggested standard set of high-level questions (some of which, e.g. Question 1 and/or 5, may need to be modified for certain topics) were:

1) Has it been used? Why or why not?

2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled?

3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences? 

4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?

5) What was the ultimate outcome?

1. Agenda, SOI Updates: None

2. Continue review of data collection & analysis:

    a. Presentation on data inventory approach by section of Consolidated URS Discussion Document - updated 9 July 2018.  See: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/88572907/Consolidated%20URS%20Discussion%20Document%20-%20updated%209%20July%202018v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1531196712000&api=v2

Update:

-- Went through the chart and noted that 80% or more of the topics identified were covered.

-- A few places where there was work to be done by the Sub Team.  Most of those are pretty easy.

-- Look for volunteers to tick off the remaining to-do items.

-- Prepare findings, policies, and recommendations for the full WG.

-- Note that Sub Team work has been efficient.

Consolidated URS Discussion Document - updated 09 July 2018v2

Background:

-- How we got here: We had a Sub Team meeting prior to Panama where staff provided the analysis over the past few months: responses, Prof. Tushnett's research -- checked off the list of the data collected and analyzed.

-- This updated document is an inventory of what we have and what is still outstanding.

-- Discuss what other tasks this group needs to perform and how that links to the topics in the table.

-- Once we divided into Sub Teams the Data Sources column was added and this Sub Team was created.

-- Staff took the initiative to collect the identified data sources and conducted the analysis.

-- The meeting prior to Panama was a presentation of some of that data.  A lot to digest.  Didn't have the connection to the topics in the table.

-- The secondary component -- there are 5 high-level questions; circle back to these when we start to review things, such as the complaint.

Example of how to review the Consolidated Document, page 3:

A. The Complaint -- Data Sources (column 5)

-- Providers Sub Team

-- Practitioners Sub Team

-- Sub bullets on the exact location of the data -- Sub Team should move to that data source, and ask the 5 questions.

Example: Administrative Review -- URS Provider Questions row 30-31: 22 cases that didn't pass the Administrative Review

-- ADNDRC said there were more than 2 cases.

-- Forum said there were 17 cases.

-- MFD said there were a few cases that failed the review.

Example: Practitioner Sub Team survey pages 20-21

Example: Response: 250 cases up to 2017 where a response was filed and we did analysis.  This was substantive and touches on all 4 data sources: Prof. Tushnett, from the Providers' site, Sub Teams on Practitioners and Providers.

-- See Table 11: URS Case Response Analysis

Discussion:

-- Is it worth running through the full Compilation Table to identify where we have work to do, then go through it a second time for a substantive review.  Yes, that is the plan.

-- Open questions: Final bullet -- Rebecca's research should show what types of marks are the subject of complaints (page 4) -- Not sure there is research that would answer that question.  Is this last bullet on types of marks meant to look at how many are identical, or something else -- such as type of mark?  May not be able to draw conclusions.  Does the WG agree that we are looking at identical or mark + term, and not dictionary terms?

-- There are two distinct sets of questions -- coding doesn't address: Is there a live problem with descriptive terms especially in the notice concept.  

-- Don't see how we could determine whether any particular mark is descriptive or generic.  That require looking at what the mark was registered for and looking behind that.  It is more of an issue with respect to the TMCH.

-- Have the documents shown us whether the facts are on the table regarding the trademark -- category of goods and services, jurisdiction.  On descriptive terms has an answer been given?  We are running through this table to identify whether we do have the data or not.  The sub bullet on page 4 on the complaint -- ACTION/QUESTION: staff hasn't done any analysis on types of marks.  Does it need to occur, if so, and how?

--  To the broader question if someone has a descriptive mark and what type of evidence they are providing -- maybe put this as a question to come back to at the end of the call.  Are the panelists reflecting the evidentiary record put before them?  Questions to Providers and Practitioners.

-- We do know that the SMD files are coming in encrypted.  Do the decisions reflect that evidence that has come in from the complaint?

-- On dictionary words: re: Dictionary words are trademarks for something; re: claims notice, we want to know if the notice is clear and provides enough information for the registrant to know how to proceed.  This is a claims notice clarity issue, not a URS issue.

[Staff walks through each section of the document and describing what is in column 5, Data Sources]

Discussion:

-- What are we doing about issues flagged by the Practitioners and Providers Sub Teams?  To the extent that the Documents Sub Team has identified issues these will be captured.  The Practitioners and Providers Sub Teams also are identifying issues that they are presenting to the WG.

-- It seems that we need to bring the work done in the different Sub Teams together. The Documents Sub Team was simply identify where we could find the information, such as in the data, or in the Practitioners or Providers Sub Teams.

-- Re: Registries and URS cases filed: qualitative experiences receiving notices -- reach out directly to them? (row on response fees).

-- Re: Standard of Proof: Recommendation: develop an examination guide for Examiners to understand distinctions between easy vs. hard cases.  Trying to understand where that came from.  Perhaps we could recommend a check list rather than a guide.  The "Education" section might be a better place for the recommendation about a checklist.

-- Re: De Novo Review: ACTION: Would be helpful if a volunteer could go through the 10 that were flagged.  David McAuley volunteered to help Berry on the 10 cases.

-- Re: Notice: Do we know what this question was meaning to address?  It was the suspension notice of the domain to the registry operator, referring to inconsistencies in practice when a language other than English is involved.

-- Re: Abuse of Process: Information from Providers that may provide some information.

-- Re: Language: Did not find anything in the Practitioners, but the Providers had substantive responses.  Determine if that is enough.

Next Steps:

-- For the bulk of these sections we've identified data and a few potential issues (some of which overlap with issues and possible recommendations from the Practitioners and Providers Sub Teams).

-- For next week: Decide whether we want to identify that this document Sub Team will pull together recommendations.

-- We have volunteers to do some follow-on work.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/attachments/20180711/99e76352/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consolidated URS Discussion Document - updated 9 July 2018v2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 65264 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/attachments/20180711/99e76352/ConsolidatedURSDiscussionDocument-updated9July2018v2-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Staff compilation report - updated URS data_v1.1 - 9 July 2018.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 206427 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/attachments/20180711/99e76352/Staffcompilationreport-updatedURSdata_v1.1-9July2018-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Responses & Notes - URS Provider Questions (15 June 2018) - Responses[1].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 251959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/attachments/20180711/99e76352/ResponsesNotes-URSProviderQuestions15June2018-Responses1-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: URS Practitioners Survey Summary Results 12 June 2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 296371 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/attachments/20180711/99e76352/URSPractitionersSurveySummaryResults12June2018-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/attachments/20180711/99e76352/smime-0001.p7s>