[Gnso-rpm-documents] Proposed next steps for URS Documents Sub Team (RPM Working Group)

[Mary Wong]

Hello Brian and everyone,

I’m following up generally and in response to Brian’s question below, with apologies for the delay as staff supporting all three URS sub teams reviewed where each sub team is on its work, and we wanted also to touch base with Rebecca.

It seems that while Rebecca’s research is moving along, it may be another couple of weeks before an initial data set can be shared. With that in mind, staff would like to suggest to this Sub Team that:


  *   The Sub Team proceed to review the 14 appeals cases in the meantime. In this regard, Berry is putting together a tabular framework where data on each of these 14 cases can be inputted (e.g., dates, domain(s) at issue, parties, response grounds, outcome etc.). In fact, given that there are only 14 cases (all filed so far with FORUM), Berry will likely be able to do the inputting at the same time and have a completed document for you all to look at by the end of next week. Would you like him to proceed accordingly, or do you prefer that 1 or perhaps 2 volunteers from the Sub Team do this?


  *   In either case, staff proposes that the data inputting work be done in the course of next week, such that a document can be circulated to the Sub Team in time for a Sub Team call on Wednesday 11 April. On that call, the Sub Team can discuss the data results with a view toward reporting back to the full Working Group (based on the work being done in the other two URS Sub Teams, staff anticipates that a full Working Group meeting can be held as early as 18 April, though we will first consult with the Working Group co-chairs to seek their views and preferences).

As the other two URS Sub Teams will be finalizing and sending out questions to practitioners and the URS providers, this Sub Team will then have a little time to complete the various other case reviews in a timeframe that comports with Rebecca’s initial data analysis. In other words, following the review of the 14 appeals cases, the Sub Team may choose to proceed with the 58 cases where the respondent prevailed with Rebecca’s research filling in the rest of the 250 cases where a response was received.

We hope this is helpful. Please let us know what you think, or if you have additional suggestions.

Thanks and cheers
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
Date: Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 12:40
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-documents at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Consolidated URS table of data sources and questions


Thanks, as ever, Mary for keeping us on track.

As we seem to have only a limited set of appeals, and not to take away from Rebecca's work, I would actually rather that this subteam (also) look at those cases (including so as to form its own views on the relevant data points to be ascertained).

Have those appeals cases been flagged in (Barry's) spreadsheet already?

Brian




________________________________
From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 12:22 AM
To: gnso-rpm-documents at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] FOR REVIEW: Updated Consolidated URS table of data sources and questions

Dear URS Documents Sub Team members,

Please find attached for your review an updated Consolidated URS Discussion Document, in which staff has updated the table where this Sub Team’s suggested data sources and questions (for Providers and Practitioners) are detailed. The staff updates concern only those additional suggestions that were made during the ICANN61 session where John McElwaine presented the Sub Team’s recommendations to the full Working Group – it is being circulated here to make sure that you are aware of, and do not have concerns about, the new edits. Please also let us know if we omitted anything inadvertently.

Please note that, for ease of review, staff has accepted all changes that were made to the document up to ICANN61. The attachment therefore just shows what edits were made based on the ICANN61 discussions – however, let us know if you prefer it to remain a mark-up from the last few versions.

NEXT STEPS FOR THE URS DOCUMENTS SUB TEAM:

  *   There will not be a Sub Team meeting next week, as the Sub Team has now completed its initial tasks.
  *   Staff has contacted Rebecca Tushnet and her research assistant, Alex Noonan, to find out the status of their research into all the URS cases. As you will recall, this Sub Team has volunteered to take on a review of a selected number of URS cases (e.g. Appeals) – staff anticipates that this task will not begin until we have heard from Rebecca and can have a good sense of how not to duplicate her work.
  *   Staff will update the two previous documents we had prepared – these being the list of questions to be sent to the URS Practitioners and Providers Sub Teams for forwarding on to the identified URS practitioners and the three URS providers, as part of those Sub Team’s questions. We will send these updated documents to both Sub Teams before they meet again next week.

Thanks and cheers
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry


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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-documents/attachments/20180330/a6ef9c1b/attachment-0001.html>