[Gnso-rpm-practitioner] FOR YOUR REVIEW & FEEDBACK SOONEST (Re: Review of Draft URS Policy Recommendations/Operational Fixes)

Wed Aug 29 14:39:37 UTC 2018

Dear URS Practitioners Sub Team members,

Following up on the note on behalf of the RPM Working Group co-chairs (below) and on behalf of Jason Schaeffer, please find attached a slightly revised URS Super Consolidated Topics Table. We have highlighted proposed revisions to the URS Documents Sub Team proposals as shown in redline and strikeout in the document.  Please note that the Practitioners Sub Team had three suggested operational fixes and no policy recommendations.  Of these, very minor changes are being suggested to two of the three operational fixes to ensure greater clarity.  The third operational fix remains unchanged from the originally suggested text.   

Please provide any feedback you may have on the proposed revisions at your earliest convenience and, if possible (as requested by the co-chairs) by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday 29 August. Although it does not seem necessary to have a call given the nature of the revisions, please let us know if you disagree.  If it is deemed that a meeting is not needed, and no objections are received concerning the changes, staff will send the revised URS Super Consolidated Topics Table to the RPM PDP Working Group to review by COB Friday, 31 August.

For your convenience, here are all the proposed revisions, shown in redline/strikeout in the URS Super Consolidated Topics document (attached):

D. STANDARD OF PROOF

2. Examiners Guide

Pages 14-15:

“Recommends working with Providers, to hire Researchers and/or Academics who study URS decisions closely, perhaps with the help of volunteer Practitioners to createing educational materials to provide more guidance to educate or instruct practitioners on what is needed to meet the ‘clear and convincing’ burden of proof in a URS proceeding.”

Page 15:

“Parties would find value in the creation of Recommends working with Providers, to hire Researchers and/or Academics who study URS decisions closely, perhaps with the help of volunteer Practitioners to create an “Overview for URS Decisions” (like the WIPO Overview on UDRP Cases)  

F. REMEDIES

2. Duration of Suspension Period

3. Review of Implementation

Page 24: “Sub Team recommends an enhanced education to help Registrars understand how to implement relief and gain better awareness of URS procedures.” [NOTE: Unchanged from the original suggested text.]

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and in advance for your feedback.

Cheers

Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 6:30 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>
Subject: Review of Draft URS Policy Recommendations/Operational Fixes

Dear URS Practitioners Sub Team members,

The RPM PDP Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC is cancelled.  

Instead, in preparation for the Working Group meeting to be held on 05 September, the Co-Chairs are requesting that the Sub Teams should review their draft URS policy recommendations and operational fixes reflected in the attached current version of the Super Consolidated table to ensure that they are specific and justified proposals for which there is sub team agreement for full WG discussion and consideration.  

For example, a recommendation might be, ““Providers should be required to check the websites of the other URS and UDRP Providers to ensure a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding” to replace the current language at “4. Administrative Review, which currently reads, “WG to consider whether to recommend that Providers check the websites of the other Providers to ensure a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding or court case.” That would create a specific detailed proposal as well as drop the reference to court cases, which the Providers Sub Team determined on its last call would be administratively burdensome, as well as unnecessary as a registrant would be in the best position to know of pending litigation against a domain. Putting this proposal out for public comment would allow the community to weigh in on whether this proposal had merit, or was unnecessary due to the brief duration of URS actions.

To this end, the Sub Team leader will suggest language for consideration and send it to the email list by tomorrow, 28 August, for the Sub Team members to consider with changes finalized by COB this Wednesday, in lieu of a meeting. If the Sub Team members feel they need to meet, it is suggested that a meeting could be scheduled for this Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC, so Sub Team members should hold this slot in case it is needed.

Best,

Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

On Behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-chairs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-practitioner/attachments/20180829/62760fb9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RPM-REDLINED SUPER CONSOLIDATED URS TOPICS TABLE-Practitioner ST-29 Aug.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 357465 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-practitioner/attachments/20180829/62760fb9/RPM-REDLINEDSUPERCONSOLIDATEDURSTOPICSTABLE-PractitionerST-29Aug-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-practitioner/attachments/20180829/62760fb9/smime-0001.p7s>