[Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Help fill out the practitioners spreadsheet

Sun Feb 25 15:23:34 UTC 2018

Hi Jason and All,

There seems to be a misunderstanding, and that's OK. I thought that 
Staff would be uploading the Practitioners spreadsheet that I started to 
allow everyone to help continue the work. I did not see that below, so I 
have uploaded the spreadsheet and opened it up. /*Could you help fill in 
the Practitioners?  I did the first 100 or so, but I am willing to bet 
that the Practitioners at the start of the URS may be only a small set 
of those who have been practicing in URS proceedings more recently. *//*
*/

Could you help with filling in the spreadsheet?  A half hour or so of 
everyone's time before this Wednesday's meeting (members and staff) 
should give us some great insight!

To avoid overlaps, I've put in names below. No obligation -- just a 
space in the spreadsheet should you want to. Link below. Some guidance 
for quick & easy searches at the top of the spreadsheet. You should have 
full edit privileges!

*Link: 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15VBgK2XRQRWkKONiJiLhSHpBYwf0nSGbvckeJrECeBU/edit?usp=sharing 
**
*
(Based on spreadsheet line numbers - far left)
200-250 - Collin  Kurre
300-250 - Georges Nahitchevansky
400-450 - Gerald Levine
500-550 - Jason Schaeffer
600-650 - Jay Chapman
700-750 - Petter Rindforth
800-1269  - Kathy Kleiman (it's mostly one case)
1270- 1320 - Scott Austin
1370- 1420 - Zhou Heng
1470- 1520 - Julie Hedlund
1570- 1620 Michelle DeSmyte

Many thanks!!
Best, Kathy

On 2/22/2018 9:17 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please note that the links to the two Google docs have been updated to 
> facilitate editing.  We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the 
> previous links.
>
> *Action Items (with updated links):*
>
> 1. Staff will prepare a Google spreadsheet of the list of 
> practitioners – /done/, see: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1czGq3Y5Z1bVx1ys_MnfLkFE1S-_Dwc3kRzfrTprlNFE/edit?usp=sharing 
>
>
> 2. Staff will prepare a Google doc with the questions and arrange them 
> in buckets – /done/, see: 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xtoDMVGgvLw6TTDrXarVg2gj2xgR6pm_R6FilPu5qgc/edit?usp=sharing
>
> 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 6:06 PM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team 
> for URS Practitioners call on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:00 UTC
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-practitioner mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-practitioner

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-practitioner/attachments/20180225/e5064122/attachment-0001.html>