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

Wed Feb 28 01:35:54 UTC 2018

My 50 are done

From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 6:16 PM
To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>; gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Help fill out the practitioners spreadsheet

Georges and All,

I did check with the Co-Chairs during our leadership meeting. In the interest of time, they would like us to reach out to URS Practitioners. If we have questions regarding the URS from the perspective of the UDRP Practitioners, they urge us to work with the URS/UDRP overlapping practitioners.

Best regards, Kathy

On 2/26/2018 6:12 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges wrote:
Kathy:

Question.  My understanding was that staff was providing a list of practitioners that we had started to put together on the call and that we would add names to that list.  This seems like a separate endeavor particularly as we discussed that the practitioners should not be limited to just individuals who filed or defended URS cases, but should include practitioners in the  online enforcement world who can comment on issues regarding the URS, such as why or why not they use the URS and related issues.  So it seems that we should be adding names of practitioners to the list that staff has already provided.

Thanks,

Georges

From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner [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

(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><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
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><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 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

________________________________

Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________

***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-practitioner/attachments/20180228/103169bb/attachment-0001.html>