[Gnso-rpm-providers] [Ext] Re: Review Responses to Proposed Questions to Providers
Justine Chew
justine.chew at gmail.com
Mon Apr 16 12:44:37 UTC 2018
Hi Ariel,
Right. Thanks for pointing out ADNDRC's response on my Q6.
That being the case, then it would make sense to *discard* my Q6
altogether, and pose Q7 (renumbered) to all 3 providers, and I would
suggest this for the Sub-team's consideration.
Thanks,
Justine
-----
On 16 April 2018 at 20:31, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:
> Hello Justine,
>
>
>
> Thanks very much for rewording the questions!
>
>
>
> Regarding your comment for Q6 (Whether ADNDRC providers an online template
> for Examiners in writing a determination), ADNDRC responded that they also
> provide a template for their Examiners (they didn’t specify whether it is
> online or not). This info was provided during the ICANN61 presentation
> (also posted as a response to Q5, immediately preceding Q6).
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ariel
>
>
>
> *From: *Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 11:56 PM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Review Responses to Proposed
> Questions to Providers
>
>
>
> Dear Sub-team colleagues,
>
> 1) As promised, I have redrafted Q7 (which was Q6 before) under Examiner
> Determination on page 21 of the Google Doc
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>
>
> *
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>*
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji
> 8iuSIt4EnTlrd0/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>.
> For easy reference, I am re-posting a clean version of the same in blue
> italicized text below:
>
> *Q7. (To FORUM and MFSD) Do you intervene in an administrative capacity to
> ensure your Examiners provide the most comprehensive written determinations
> they possibly can? How do you strive to standardize the completeness or
> quality of your Examiners’ written determinations beyond the use of your
> online Determination template or form? *
>
>
> 2) Further, I think the what was the *first* bullet point in the
> paragraph immediately preceding now Q7 should be made Q6, because I don't
> recall seeing an answer from ADNDRC in the Providers' presentation or Q&A
> part of the relevant ICANN61 session. Unless their reply has been included
> in any subsequent followup written reply, in which case I would appreciate
> if Ariel could point out the same. Again for easy reference, I am
> re-posting a clean version of the same in blue italicized text below:
>
>
>
> *Q6. **(To ADNDRC) To guide their Examiners in writing a determination,
> FORUM provides an online template while MFSD provides on online
> Determination form. Does ADNDRC have a similar practice? If not, do you
> provide any alternative form of guidance for the drafting of URS decisions?
> ***
>
>
>
> 3) In this same version of the Google Doc
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>
>
> *
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>*
>
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>we
> can see a record of more replies that have been provided to some of the
> questions (i.e. those marked in green highlight by Ariel). So, I wanted
> to ask if the Sub-team will still move to include all the questions we have
> identified in the Google Doc or will we now consider trimming the questions
> list hereon?
>
>
>
> If we do take the approach of trimming the questions list (which I think
> is appropriate) then how do we establish an effective way to highlight to
> the full WG that many of the questions that were identified by the Sub-team
> and by the WG members at the relevant ICANN61 session have been
> addressed/replied to, such that WG members won't raise repeated or
> redundant questions simply because they may not have followed the work of
> the Sub-team closely. Would the
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1I-2Dqe-5FI4OkQT7IU-5FrjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=Bi_3qZT7zBHxjUv6BEcQe_GOsOCNyTvFiEE51NEdHyI&e=>
>
> *
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1I-2Dqe-5FI4OkQT7IU-5FrjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=Bi_3qZT7zBHxjUv6BEcQe_GOsOCNyTvFiEE51NEdHyI&e=>*
>
> table[docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1I-2Dqe-5FI4OkQT7IU-5FrjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=Bi_3qZT7zBHxjUv6BEcQe_GOsOCNyTvFiEE51NEdHyI&e=>
> sufficiently represent an effective way?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Justine
> -----
>
>
>
> On 12 April 2018 at 10:20, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Per action item, staff has included 1) responses from Providers received
> at ICANN61 & follow-up email, 2) Providers’ Supplemental Rules, and 3)
> staff research result, in the Google Doc: [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>
>
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji
> 8iuSIt4EnTlrd0/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>.
> This information may answer or partially answer some of the proposed
> questions (with highlights in green on the questions’ numbers):
>
>
>
> - Communications: Q2, Q4
> - The Complaint: Q1, Q6, Q7, Q12
> - Administrative Review: Q1, Q2
> - Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q4
> - The Response: Q1, Q8, Q15A, Q19
> - Examiner: Q1, Q2, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q10, Q11, Q13, Q16
> - Language: Q1, Q3, Q5
> - Examiner Determination: Q5 (first bullet point)
> - Determinations and Publication: Q1, Q2, Q3
> - Abusive Complaints: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q5, Q6
> - Appeal: Q1, Q4
> - Others: Q8, Q9, Q10
>
>
>
> As discussed during the Sub Team call, please be so kind to review these
> responses and suggest whether any of these questions should be struck
> (responses are satisfactory), or revised in order gain further
> clarification from the Providers. The Google Doc will remain open till *Monday,
> 16 April at 23:59 UTC*.
>
>
>
> If the Sub Team decide to strike any of these questions, the questions
> themselves and their respective responses will still be kept in this
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1I-2Dqe-5FI4OkQT7IU-5FrjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=Bi_3qZT7zBHxjUv6BEcQe_GOsOCNyTvFiEE51NEdHyI&e=>
>
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1I-2Dqe-5FI4OkQT7IU-5FrjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=Bi_3qZT7zBHxjUv6BEcQe_GOsOCNyTvFiEE51NEdHyI&e=>
>
> table[docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1I-2Dqe-5FI4OkQT7IU-5FrjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=Bi_3qZT7zBHxjUv6BEcQe_GOsOCNyTvFiEE51NEdHyI&e=>
> for record keeping.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your time and review!
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ariel
>
>
>
> *Ariel Xinyue Liang*
>
> Policy Analyst | Washington, DC
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Ariel Liang* <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> Date: 12 April 2018 at 03:47
> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Action Items & Notes - Provider Sub Team
> Meeting Wed 11 April
> To: "gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Kindly find below the action items and notes captured in today’s call.
> They have been published on the meeting wiki page, along with call
> recordings and attendance record: https://community.
> icann.org/x/gYH3B[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_gYH3B&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=C4yfpEwTg1DpnBVEIcbNwIzq7gvln08Pg0s7nuQrSoA&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ariel
>
>
>
> *Ariel Xinyue Liang*
>
> Policy Analyst | Washington, DC
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>
>
> 1. Sub Team members to suggest additional edits, as well as additional
> questions related to the ADNDRC and MSFD Supplemental Rules, directly on
> the Google Document[docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=6q3eTAO1zxxfuCpA5qOHeM0RXZxwtAtrB9RekUyg1Js&s=lTCrXNGUwS0oqX2Oxk_qEUTXVU5MK8QblEzbqPn__jw&e=>
> by *Monday, 16 April at 23:59 UTC* and inform others to review via
> the mailing list when edits are added. Staff to convert a clean version of
> the Google Doc, incorporating all edits/comments as is, and forward to the
> full WG on Tuesday, 17 April.
> 2. Staff to incorporate suggestions/edits discussed in the meeting on
> the Google Doc [DONE]
> 3. Staff to insert the already received responses to Provider
> questions in the Google Doc; Sub Team to evaluate whether these questions
> should be struck, or need to be asked differently to gain further
> clarification.
> 4. Phil, Lori, and Susan to refine the questions related to GDPR
> impact and consider whether a new section needs to be added:
>
>
> - The Complaint (Q3): Have you encountered any issues receiving WHOIS
> info needed for URS proceedings when dealing with Complaints against
> Registrants due to privacy laws/regulations? If so, what are the
> countries/nations of these Registrants?
> - The Complaint (Q13): How will the URS rules pertaining to cases
> involving domains utilizing privacy or proxy services be affected if full
> access to WHOIS data is no longer publicly available due to GDPR
> implementation? What WHOIS data elements do you require to perform your
> role as a URS dispute resolution provider?
> - Others (Q1): Do you envision any difficulty complying with the
> provisions related to WHOIS contained in the URS Rules, Procedure,
> Technical Requirements, and your own Supplemental Rules, upon the 25 May
> 2018 effective date of GDPR enforcement?
>
>
> 1. Justine to redraft the following question:
>
>
> - Examiner Determination (Q6): (To FORUM and MFSD) How do FORUM and
> MFSD compel their Examiners to comply with their such templates in writing
> their determinations or guidelines? Noting previous remarks that the
> quality of determinations vary from Examiner to Examiner.
>
>
> 1. Sub Team to table Michael K’s suggestion to Examiner (Q1) for
> further discussion with the full WG: “I would appreciate if we could dig a
> little deeper into Q1 under examiners, specifically to look into what (if
> any) proportion of the Examiners have experience representing the
> registrant side, or if they tend to mostly have a background representing
> trademark holders.”
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
> - Communications (Q4): Staff to reword the question in a positive
> manner
> - Communications (Q6): Staff to add reference to URS Rules 2(f)
> - The Complaint (Q3): Don’t limit the question within the scope of EU
> nations, as there are privacy laws in other countries. The question should
> be territory neutral. Perhaps add a question asking “If so, what are the
> countries/nations of these Registrants?”
> - The Complaint (Q8): Add “How do you find this information?”
> - The Complaint (Q12): Drop the explanatory notes within the brackets;
> add the third part of the question: “Are you able to determine whether the
> mistake was due to Complainant error, or a WHOIS inaccuracy? If so, please
> share with us your analysis.”
> - The Complaint (Q13): GDPR is going to impact domains not registered
> via P/P services as well. An additional, overarching question may need to
> be asked: “How would you perceive the URS related rules and procedures
> change after GDPR goes into effect?” *ACTION*: Phil, Lori, and Susan
> to reconsider wording this question, as well as Q3 under The Complaint and
> Q1 under Others; staff to remove these three questions from the Google Doc.
> - Fees (Q1): Drop the question “What are your filing fees for
> Complainants and Respondents (where applicable)?” as it has been answered
> in Providers’ Supplemental Rules.
> - Administrative Review (Q1): Direct the question only to FORUM as the
> other two Providers have answered it
> - Administrative Review (Q2): Drop the question as it has been
> answered by all three Providers
> - Examiners (Q1): Michael K’s suggestion seems unanswerable by the
> Providers. Table the discussion till when the full WG reviews the suggested
> questions.
> - Examiner Determination (Q6): *ACTION: *Justine to reword and clarify
> the question.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180416/641b4e7e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-rpm-providers
mailing list