[Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:00 UTC

Wed Feb 21 23:05:58 UTC 2018

Dear all,

Per the actions below please see the links to the requested Google documents.  These documents are open to editing and Sub Team members are encouraged to suggest edits directly in the text.  For example, staff welcomes additional suggestions for practitioners, as well as contacts and contact information.  With respect to the questions, staff welcomes edits to the questions and topic areas, as well as additional suggested questions, 

Action Items:

1. Staff will prepare a Google spreadsheet of the list of practitioners – done, see: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xtoDMVGgvLw6TTDrXarVg2gj2xgR6pm_R6FilPu5qgc/edit?usp=sharing 

2. Staff will prepare a Google doc with the questions and arrange them in buckets – done, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1czGq3Y5Z1bVx1ys_MnfLkFE1S-_Dwc3kRzfrTprlNFE/edit?usp=sharing 

Thank you very much for your assistance and please let us know if you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Julie

From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 2:59 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:00 UTC

Dear all,

Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners meeting today (21 February 2018).  The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records.

Note also that the next call will be on Friday, 28 February at 1800 UTC.

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items:

1. Staff will prepare a Google spreadsheet of the list of practitioners.

2. Staff will prepare a Google doc with the questions and arrange them in buckets.

Notes:

1.  Overview of scope of work and selection of Sub Team chair(s) (if desired): Jason Schaeffer volunteered to Chair.

Scope of Work

-- Look to the expertise of this group on identifying practitioners.

-- Brainstorm on scope and nature of concerns to help drive the questions.

2.  Discussion:

a) Identify a list of experienced URS practitioners:

-- Looking to identify a set of experienced URS practitioners.

-- Wondering if we should include on the agenda how we do the outreach to these practitioners?  What do we ask them?

-- Start filling in a spreadsheet of practitioners.

-- Start with who we know now and add to it, from URS cases.

-- Think it is important to think on the practitioner side -- there are a lot of people who practice in this space, but others who have decided not to do URS, but use UDRP instead.  Get insight from people who practice in online enforcement and find out why they don't use the URS.

List of Practitioners: David Taylor, John Berryhill, Richard Biagi... URS attorneys, yoyo.email of Dunstable, International, GB.; Doug Eisenberg, David Bernstein, Flip Petillon, Zak Muscovitch, CSC Digital Brand Services of Wilmington, DE (representative to TM owners), Mark Monitor, Stobbs Julius E Stobbs of Cambridge  (does a lot of the Virgin work), David E. Weslow of Washington, DC, China Trademark Association to help identify practitioners.

b) Develop a list of questions directed at these practitioners:

Organization: Seems that we will have procedural issues, substantive issues and practical issues (filing mechanics, word limitations, etc>)  Should we break up our work into different buckets?  The third bucket could be tactics and approaches or something similar, to cover questions to both URS and non-URS practitioners, eg those that chose alternate methods — UDRP, litigation, etc

Questions:

-- Do they use TMCH or a printout from active web sites.  Why they use one for evidence of use over the other one, for establishing the claim.

-- .SMD file -- is it a good basis for proof of use of the mark?  If not, what would they recommend?

-- Threshold question: whether or not a practitioner is choosing to use the URS and if not why are they bypassing the URS?

-- If they are bringing a claim are they happy with the process?  Is the process clear?  Any procedural problems?

-- Notice: Are practitioners finding that the notice is getting through to the registrant and which one is getting through?  Hard copy, email, etc.?

-- How do the practitioners feel about the ability to refile after 6 months, appeal process?  The extended mechanisms.

-- Questions on the burden of proof and the remedies available.

-- The appeal process -- what do they think about it?  Its use by domain name holders? What can we do to make it better?  May be very few cases that have appealed, is it being used? 

-- Fees: Ask about whether the fee is too high or too low?  Whether or not the fee structure works for the URS and does it factor into a brand protector whether or not to file.

-- Response fee for multiple filing.

-- What do they think about the suspension for the duration of the registration?  Whether to have an extended time of the suspension.  The suspension may also apply to the decision whether or not to use the URS as a protection mechanism.

-- The way that the brand owner and practitioners -- how do they know about the URS?  

-- How do registrants know about the responses to the URS and the affirmative defenses?  Question about URS awareness generally and how it is disseminated to brand owners and others, and the effectiveness of that.

-- How do the practitioners feel about the expertise of the examiners and the fairness of the decisions.  Whether or not the practitioners are satisfied with the examiners and the fairness of their decisions.  Also gets to the issue of training of examiners.

-- Whether or not there should be something analogous for the URS that gives more certainty to the structure.  Should we have a analogous WIPO's reviews.

-- Apart from looking at remedies and effectiveness -- look at the burden of proof, is it clear, does it need to be modified?  Bad faith, and/or discussion.

-- Should there be more guidance regarding what meets the "clear and convincing" standard?  This might get into training for providers, for the larger group.

-- Other thought regards WHOIS issues  (inaccuracy of such) and how that impacts -- particularly with the GPDR

3.  Next steps/next meeting: 

-- Next steps:  Staff to produce Google docs and circulate.

-- Next meeting: 28 February at 1800 UTC.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-practitioner/attachments/20180221/802a9943/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20180221/802a9943/smime-0001.p7s>