<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.p1, li.p1, div.p1
{mso-style-name:p1;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.p2, li.p2, div.p2
{mso-style-name:p2;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.s1
{mso-style-name:s1;}
span.EmailStyle31
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle32
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle33
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1033652322;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1344049930 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1945916263;
mso-list-template-ids:-944607978;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Dear all,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This is a reminder of the actions below. Responses are request no later than <b><i>COB today, Tuesday, 19 June.</i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Best,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Julie<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><br><b>Date: </b>Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:18 PM<br><b>To: </b>"gnso-rpm-practitioner@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner@icann.org><br><b>Subject: </b>[Gnso-rpm-practitioner] FOR REVIEW re: Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dear all,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Per the actions items below from today’s meeting, please see the attached documents for review:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Survey results converted to a Word and PDF document;</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>PowerPoint Presentation and PDF including current status, next steps, explanation of the list of practitioners, number of responses, and issues identified with possible actions (including bullet points based on today’s discussion).</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Please send your comments ASAP but no later than <b><i><u>COB on Tuesday, 19 June</u></i></b>. Staff will incorporate the changes and send the documents in PDF to the WG to review on <b><i><u>20 June</u></i></b>.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Thank you very much for your help!</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><br><b>Date: </b>Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 2:52 PM<br><b>To: </b>"gnso-rpm-practitioner@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-practitioner@icann.org><br><b>Subject: </b>[Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Action & Notes: RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners call on Thursday, 14 June 2018 17:00 UTC</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Dear all,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Sub Team for URS Practitioners meeting today (</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>14 June <span style='color:black'>2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording</span> <span style='color:black'>and attendance records.</span> See: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-06-14+Sub+Team+for+URS+Practitioners">https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-06-14+Sub+Team+for+URS+Practitioners</a>. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Best Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Julie</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>ACTION ITEMS</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Staff to convert the survey results into a word/PDF doc and insert sub headings by Today (Thu, 14 June)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Staff to identify issues raised and responses that may result in actions, and circulate the information in the PowerPoint format by Today (Thu, 14 June). The possible issues include relief awarded, issues with relief (e.g. Chinese registrar) and length of submissions</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Staff to send out the survey results and staff document on Wednesday, 20 June and ask WG members to review them before they arrive in Panama.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Sub Team to provide comment/input on the staff document via email by Tuesday, 19 June</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Sub Team to focus on the significant responses and key areas highlighted in the staff document</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>NOTES</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='color:black'>Overview of the Practitioners Survey Results </span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Survey is broken into several sections </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- 38 practitioners on the distribution list, got 14 responses</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Survey was open for three-week period; INTA/GDD Summit may have hindered the response rates</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Two slides per question for two different views (i.e., chart, percentage) </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Results are displayed based on how SurveyMonkey captured them</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Were there any practitioners who tried to file later but were turned away? </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Survey is still open, other practitioners may still file if they wish. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='color:black'>SECTION 1: Background & Perspectives</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q1. In how many URS proceedings have you been involved as Complainant or its representative?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Will a 13 out of 38 responses be challenged by the usual suspects as not statistically significant and challenged on that basis? However, the survey should be given credibility because the people who responded provided thoughtful comments. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Some practitioners filed 10 or more complaints, and you get 100 total cases out of 800+ cases. The data is not insignificant. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Need to know who these parties are – it could be the brand protection firms or large law firms that filed the cases. Assume that a lot of brand protection firms have responded here. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q2. In how many URS proceedings have you been involved as Respondent or its representative?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Isn't the response to 2 and 4 inconsistent?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Respondents may have mistakenly answered these two questions or overlooked </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q3. Overall, leaving aside the result of the proceeding, how was your experience with the process of a URS proceeding?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- 85% - positive & extremely positive </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q4: With respect to question 3 above, please indicate if you are</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q5: With respect to question 3 above, please indicate what URS provider you used:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- FORUM (Renee) helped promote / circulate the survey, hence many respondents are associated with NAF </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='color:black'>SECTION 2: Procedural</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q1: When involved as Complainant or its representative in a URS proceeding, were there any difficulties with delivering notice of the proceeding to the Respondent?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Assume with GDPR that will increase as a problem</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Unless of course the registrant's real name is DOE</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- MFSD accepts Doe Complaints in light of GDPR, based on their responses </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q2: When involved as Respondent or its representative in a URS proceeding did the Respondent experience any issues with receiving notice of the proceeding, not including a delay in the Respondent sending the notice to its representative?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Either No or N/A</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q3: Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q4: If you answered "yes" to question 3 "Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision?", and leaving aside the result of the proceeding, from the choices below how would you characterize your experience with the appeal process after a URS proceeding?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q5: Have you or a party adverse to you in a URS proceeding ever sought de novo review under Paragraph 6.4 of the URS Procedure?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q6: If you answered "yes" to Question 5, and leaving aside the result of the proceeding, from your experience with de novo review under Paragraph 6.4 of the URS Procedure, do you believe this procedure should be retained, modified or removed?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q7: Please provide any comments you wish to add in explanation of any of your answers to questions 3 through 6 above. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='color:black'>SECTION 3: Substantive Issues</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q1: Do you believe that URS dispute resolution providers should provide a resource similar to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions for the URS?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q2: In your URS proceeding(s) do you believe the Decision/Determination provided the reasons upon which the decision was based, as required by Section 13(b) of the URS Rules?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q3: Do you believe that the URS is primarily being used for the types of cases for which it was intended, namely, clear cases of abuse?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q4: Have you encountered any problems with the implementation of the relief awarded following a URS decision?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q5: Do you believe the relief provided by a URS proceeding is adequate?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Not a surprising response and probably also explains why not a huge a number of cases filed</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Q 22 comments on remedy among most useful responses of the survey</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Procedural problem because registrars should be responding</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- The issue on the Chinese registrar is that it is often very hard to get Chinese registrars to implement decisions appropriately</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Do you think language is an issue?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Not really all language issues. I have used native Chinese speakers and we still run into issues. The registrars put up a number of what appear road blocks. Some issues in the UDRP for example, may involve PRC laws re .com registration, so not surprised that there would be implementation issues with URS relief</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Chinese registrars are not implementing the suspension and not obeying the rule. Need to find out what the issues are to resolve the problem. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q6: Should there be more guidance provided to educate or instruct practitioners on what is needed to meet the “clear and convincing” burden of proof in a URS proceeding?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q7: Based on your experience as a URS practitioner, is the standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for the burden of proof in a URS proceeding appropriate?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q8: Based on your experience with the URS, should the standard for the burden of proof be modified?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Highlight the second response and revisit at an appropriate time: Regarding remedies, would like to see an option of a voluntary (negotiated) transfer from a losing respondent to a prevailing complainant before the domain expires. There are negotiated transfers taking place, not sure how it is implemented. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- It would be interesting to look at several of the suggested remedies to see if they were considered in the history of the promulgation of the URS.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='color:black'>SECTION 4: Practical Issues</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q1: Do you believe that the submission of a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce should be adequate evidence of use for a URS case?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Also "a right of first refusal to purchase the domain when it next becomes available." and "an established process for requesting suspension renewals"</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Those were additional remedies raised that I wondered if they were considered in the original discussion of URS remedies when it was created.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Comment from Berry: within the Docs sub-team, we performed a domain disposition analysis. In short, Brand Protection companies acquired the domain on behalf of their client (most likely deleted and immediately registered), some cases the brand itself acquired the domain, DPML or Registry Reservations. Others chose to not renew the name. And of course there are instances where the domain was registered after it was deleted by a different registrant. We'll be presenting that snap shot of findings to the larger WG in the near future.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q2: Do you believe that the submission of an SMD file from the Trademark Clearing House to demonstrate that evidence of use was filed with the TMCH should be adequate proof of use for a URS case?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q3: Do you believe the filing fee for a URS is appropriate?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q4: Do you believe the response fee for a URS is appropriate?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Lowering the fee would probably impact on the quality of decisions</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- If the URS fee is lowered ICANN had better start issuing Pro Bono awards to the panelists</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q5: Do you believe there are adequate means for searching prior URS cases?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q6: Do you believe the existing word limitation for filings in a URS proceeding is appropriate?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Distributed responses</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q7: Do you believe the existing time frames for submitting filings in a URS proceeding are appropriate?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Distributed responses </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q8: Do you believe the existing limitations on the submission of evidence in a URS proceeding are appropriate?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q9. Please provide any comments you wish to add in explanation of any of your answers to questions 1 through 8 above:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='color:black'>SECTION 5: Other</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q1: If you chose not to file a URS in a particular matter, what was the reason? Please choose from the following options:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q2: Do you believe that the URS Process as it now exists is an effective rights protection mechanism?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q3: If the URS was available in all gTLDs, would you use it? Why or why not?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q4: Please provide any comments you want to add to explain your answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 above:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q5: Leaving aside the result of the proceeding, have you had an experience with an Examiner having an actual or potential conflict of interest in a URS proceeding?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Q6: Leaving aside the result of the proceeding, have you had an experience with an Examiner not being impartial and independent in a URS proceeding?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- No comment</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='color:black'>General Comments </span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Good results but with small number of responses </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Some of the suggestions in response to Q 39 and 43 seem like important procedural changes should not be particularly objectionable but would be easy fixes increasing the word limit to 1K words, allowing exhibits, and accommodations of additional evidence of bad faith</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Nothing jumps out to be overwhelmingly surprising or negative. Exception is that some people are pushing for a stronger process, more like UDRP. Other than those exceptions, it is a good starting point. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Folks are satisfied generally, but are concerned about the relief granted. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Do we need to present all the data/questions? Or present a selected set as action items. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Present this in Panama is wiser, and we can answer questions, instead of sending out the results via emails. Concern is members may over analyze the results. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- If the respondents have more negative experience, then we may have more responses. If they are overall satisfied with the experience, they may not respond. We would know if there is any serious problem. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Agree with Phil, the lack of major negative responses is encouraging, and that the core is working. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Should there be a decision now to close the survey so there is no attempt to alter the results once the current result is released? Yes, close the survey now.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Wed, 27 June 10:30-12:00 is the session to review Practitioner survey responses, kicking off the RPM sessions. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- Jason would be in Panama, Georges would not, Jay would participate remotely. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='color:black'>Next Steps </span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- ACTION ITEM: Staff to convert the survey results into a word/PDF doc and insert sub headings by Today (Thu, 14 June)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- ACTION ITEM: Staff to identify issues raised and responses that may result in actions and circulate the information in the PowerPoint format by Today (Thu, 14 June). The possible issues include relief awarded, issues with relief (e.g. Chinese registrar) and length of submissions</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to provide comment/input on the staff documents via email by Tuesday, 19 June</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- ACTION ITEM: Staff to send out the survey results and staff document on Wednesday, 20 June and ask WG members to review them before they arrive in Panama.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>- ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to focus on the significant responses and key areas highlighted in the staff document</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>