[Gnso-rpm-providers] Comments/Suggestions for Proposed Questions to URS Providers - Feedback by Mon, 23 April

[Corwin, Philip]

Michael:



I confirm that you submitted the question prior to the last WG call and that it was not discussed on the call due to time constraints.



I am hereby requesting that support staff add it to the list of comments and proposed questions meriting further review.



Best, Philip







Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell



"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey



From: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 11:20 AM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
Cc: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Comments/Suggestions for Proposed Questions to URS Providers - Feedback by Mon, 23 April



Hi,



I proposed a question previously, under the examiners section, and was told it would be discussed at the April 18th call. I guess time constraints prevented this. Nonetheless, I don't see it appearing here as either a confirmed or proposed question, and would appreciate if it could be added. The question is:



1. Would you say that a substantial majority of your examiners have professional experience that mainly draws from representing trademark holders seeking to enforce their rights, or mainly draws from domain registrants seeking to defend against trademark claims, or would you say that your examiners include a mix of both, or that most have a history of representing both sides in these disputes?



Best wishes and thanks,



Michael Karanicolas



On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>> wrote:

   Dear All,



   Please be so kind to find attached the comments/suggestions for the proposed questions to URS Providers for your consideration. They are incorporated in the Word file attached as redline. For your convenience of viewing, the questions that received comments/suggestions are:



   *    Communications: Q4, Q5, Q6 (additional question)
   *    The Complaint: Q4
   *    Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q5
   *    The Response: Q1, Q4, Q11, Q14, Q15
   *    Examiner: Q12 (additional questions - please note that Providers have already responded to Q12c)
   *    Language: Q4
   *    In-Person Hearings: Q1
   *    Default: Q1, Q2, Q3
   *    Examiner Determination: Q3, Q6, Q8, Q10 (additional question)
   *    Remedies: Q4, Q5, Q6 (additional question)
   *    Effect of Court Proceedings: Q1
   *    Others: Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7 (additional question)



   Please be so kind to review and provide your input/feedback on whether and how to incorporate these new comments/suggestions by Monday, 23 April.



   Thank you, and have a great weekend!



   Best Regards,

   Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry


   _______________________________________________
   Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list
   Gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto: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/20180421/2c4bc9a5/attachment-0001.html>