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

Kathy Kleiman kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Feb 27 20:13:11 UTC 2018


Great thanks to Jay C. and Scott A.!!  If others are interested in a bit 
of field research, here is the link and instructions are on the spreadsheet.

*Link: 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15VBgK2XRQRWkKONiJiLhSHpBYwf0nSGbvckeJrECeBU/edit?usp=sharing 
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15VBgK2XRQRWkKONiJiLhSHpBYwf0nSGbvckeJrECeBU/edit?usp=sharing> 

*

It's very interesting to go through the URS cases...

Best, Kathy

(Based on spreadsheet line numbers - far left)
1-100 Kathy Kleiman (done)
200-250 - Collin  Kurre
300-250 - Georges Nahitchevansky
400-450 - Gerald Levine
500-550 - Jason Schaeffer
600-650 - Jay Chapman (done)
700-750 - Petter Rindforth
800-1269  - Kathy Kleiman
1270- 1320 - Scott Austin (done)
1370- 1420 - Zhou Heng
1470- 1520 - Julie Hedlund


On 2/27/2018 12:12 AM, Jay Chapman wrote:
> Thanks, Kathy.
>
> 600-650 is done.
> Of the cases searched, 32% listed complainant counsel's name.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jay Chapman*
> *
> *<http://www.digimedia.com>*
> 102 S. Broadway, #200 - Edmond, OK 73034
> jay at digimedia.com <mailto:jay at digimedia.com>- (940) 691-1800
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Scott Austin <SAustin at vlplawgroup.com 
> <mailto:SAustin at vlplawgroup.com>> wrote:
>
>     Kathy:
>
>     I complete my portion of your list assignment (rows 1270-1320) and
>     inserted counsel for complainant based on review of the cases
>     listed, but most do not name the specific practitioner, only the
>     firm, and none listed a counsel for respondent, unless the
>     placekeepers listed in the case file as *«cFirstName» «cMiddle»
>     «cLastName» *for respondent’s representative were more than
>     placekeepers and signaled characters that did not transliterate.
>     Also agree with Georges N. that there are many more practitioners
>     than those listed, as well as the URS panelists themselves who if
>     they are so inclined may have some general observations to share
>     on procedural or other challenges faced given the short amount of
>     time and resources available to decide each expedited summary
>     proceeding.
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     Scott
>
>     */Please click below to  use my booking calendar to schedule:/*
>
>     */a 15-minute call <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/15min> /*a
>     30-minute call <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/30min> a 60-minute
>     call <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/60min>
>
>     *IntellectualPropertyLaw 100 **microbadge[1]*
>     <http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html>
>
>     Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney |
>     VLP Law Group LLP
>
>     101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
>
>     Phone: (954) 204-3744 <tel:%28954%29%20204-3744> | Fax: (954)
>     320-0233 <tel:%28954%29%20320-0233> | SAustin at VLPLawGroup.com
>     <mailto:SAustin at VLPLawGroup.com>
>
>     *From:*Gnso-rpm-practitioner
>     [mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of
>     *Kathy Kleiman
>     *Sent:* Sunday, February 25, 2018 10:24 AM
>     *To:* gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>
>     *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Help fill out the practitioners
>     spreadsheet
>
>     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
>     <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
>         <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
>         <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>
>         <mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>         Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>         <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>         *Date: *Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 6:06 PM
>         *To: *"gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org"
>         <mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>
>         <gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>
>         <mailto: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
>         <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
>         <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>
>         <mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>         Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>         <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>         *Date: *Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 2:59 PM
>         *To: *"gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org"
>         <mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>
>         <gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>
>         <mailto: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<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://yoyo.email&c=E,1,xumqx9T7CfJevQtRK9S8ljtq033qYpF5dg5UIGnX54nQqJD8ttZxVImxgKRfb5pNKaxv4XDvhMnM4zp04yIwIa8vFms7V9DaS4VTqqymUSaztfT8&typo=1>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
>         <mailto:Gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>
>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-practitioner
>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-practitioner>
>
>     This message contains information which may be confidential and
>     legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use,
>     copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information
>     contained in the message. If you have received this message in
>     error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax
>     advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to
>     avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
>     _______________________________________________
>     Gnso-rpm-practitioner mailing list Gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org
>     <mailto:Gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-practitioner
>     <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/20180227/6701dcf7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 11048 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-practitioner/attachments/20180227/6701dcf7/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1121 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-practitioner/attachments/20180227/6701dcf7/attachment-0002.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1901 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-practitioner/attachments/20180227/6701dcf7/attachment-0003.jpe>


More information about the Gnso-rpm-practitioner mailing list