[Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Wednesday, 07 March 2018 18:00 UTC

Wed Mar 7 21:44:41 UTC 2018

Dear all,

Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners meeting today (07 March 2018).  The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records.  See: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-02-28+Sub+Team+for+URS+Practitioners. 

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items:
Questions:
Staff will add page numbers to the sections and questions. 
Staff will accept all edits and update questions based on meeting.
Practitioners: 
Staff will use Greg Shatan’s version as the primary document.
On page 7: Staff will arrange in order from highest to lowest number of cases (page 7, suggestions from Sub Team members).
Slides for ICANN61 Presentation, Sunday, 11 March at 17:00: Staff will develop slides with the questions.

Notes:

1. Discussion on the questions for practitioners: 

-- The goal is to finalize the list, making sure it is comprehensive.

-- Second page, question "In any of your cases, did it appear that the panelist did not consider all required criteria or did not address certain aspects of the URS which it was required to do?" Comment: This question needs to be clarified.  Is it about the "clear and convincing" standard or is it about the 3 pronged criteria for a URS case generally?  If it's not about c&c it should be moved out of the middle of that discussion.  "certain [required] aspects of the URS" is also unclear -- I think we need to show by example or citation what this means, and where it is "required."

-- "All required criteria" is all three elements -- should clarify.  Change to "each of the three required elements".  Isn't the next section redundant?  .SMD file is one of those aspects.  Separate into two questions?  Don't think the .smd file is an example of a required element.  Could bring this to the WG. 

-- Questions were not formulated to someone to ask them more generally, but most have been change to cover that.  Still have a question on page 2: "If you are a brand owner or a practitioner how do you get to know about the existence of URS? How did you make a decision about whether should they propose a URS or just let it go?"  "If you are a registrant how did you get to know about the existence of the URS..."

-- "Response fee for multiple filing."  How to turn this into a question?  Reframe as "Fees: How do parties feel about the response fee for a filing listing 15 or more domain names (Section 2.2 of the URS Policy)? Do you believe  the fee is too high or too low?  Does the fee structure work for the URS? How do the fee factor into deciding whether or not to file a URS case?"

-- Suggest numbering the questions.  Action: Staff will add numbering in the sections and questions.

-- In the tactics and approaches section, should we add a question as to whether or not the practitioners believe the relief provided by the URS (i.e. suspension) is adequate, and, if not, what would they like to see as the relief (e.g., transfer of domain name). 

-- Also, should we not have a question asking practitioners if they have encountered any problems with the relief awarded following a URS decision and to describe the problem.  

-- Lastly, on the substantive issues, should we not also ask the practitioner to comment on the three part test and in particular whether the third element should be changed from bad faith registration and use to bad faith registration or use.  Note that if this was implemented it would change the URS entirely.  If we open up the question we could be suggesting that the URS would be inconsistent with the UDRP.  Add "Is it valuable for the URS to follow the UDRP elements?"  Flag this.  Concern that it is not the appropriate time to ask.

-- Add: "Do you believe that the remedy provided by the URS is adequate?  If not,  what remedy would you propose?"

-- Add: "Have you encountered any problems with the relief awarded following a URS decision.  If so, please describe the problem encountered."

-- Under practical issues: "Question about URS awareness generally and how it is disseminated to brand owners and others, and the effectiveness of that."  Turn into a question.

-- Question about GDPR: Number 9 under burden of proof.  "What impact, if any, do you believe the GDPR [add a note explaining what GDPR stand for] that will take effect on 25 May 2018 will have on the URS?"  Move out of this section.

 -- Add to this question, can we add Why or Why Not? "Have you encountered any problems with the relief awarded following a URS decision.  If so, please describe the problem encountered."

-- Add: "Have you encountered any problems after a successful UDRP decision with the suspension or the extension of the suspension?  if so, please describe the problem encountered.  Can you recommend any correction or improvement? "   

2. Discussion of the list of practitioners and outreach proposals:

-- Searched the total cases in the universe for those we had identified.  Updated the numbers.

-- If including people with no cases then we will have to rephrase the questions.

-- Can we focus at least on those who have some experience, say more than a small number of cases?  Such as 8 and up?

-- Perhaps we could reach out to those who only have 1 case, if only to ask if there was a reason why they didn't take any more cases after the first.

-- Those that represent responses would have fewer cases.

-- No problem having a panel of pundits, but we need to distinguish them from the URS practitioners.

-- Then should we have a bright line of required number of cases that would qualify someone as a practitioner by our definition?

-- Use Greg's version. Reorder from most to fewest cases on page 7.

-- Take some of the usual suspects and try to see who are the most numerous on the UDRP -- but don't ask them all of the questions.  Why they aren't using URS.

-- As we have seen,  1 case could be very instructive if it includes multiple domains or presented unique issues. Need to see how many respond before we quantify  a threshold for "experience" with a new procedure. 

3. Planning for ICANN61:

-- Create slides of the questions – limit to a slide or two in each section.

-- Do page 7 as a slide.  Pages 1-3 could be shown as a PDF.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-practitioner/attachments/20180307/2cddde45/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/20180307/2cddde45/smime-0001.p7s>