[Gnso-rpm-providers] Updated Redline (version 26 April): Proposed Questions to URS Providers

[Michael Karanicolas]

Hi,

Thanks for circulating. A couple of small suggested additions (in bold) for
page 2:

The Complaint
....
3. A) (To FORUM) How does the FORUM handle the submission (through its
online Complaint filing site) of a relevant SMD proof of use from the TMCH
which is expressly provided for in the URS Rules 3(b)(v)?  *Can the
categories of goods and services of the trademark be read from the SMD
file?*

B) (To ADNDRC) Does ADNDRC's electronic Complaint form (Form C_URS) also
allow the uploading of .smd files in the same manner as MFSD? *Can the
categories of goods and services of the trademark be read from the SMD
file?*

Best,

Michael Karanicolas


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Sub Team,
>
>
>
> Following yesterday’s WG call, staff have consolidated all comments and
> suggestions received during and after the call. We will update this
> document if more comments/suggestions are posted on the WG mailing list by
> the deadline of Friday, 27 April COB. Please find the redline document
> attached.
>
>
>
> 1. Staff would like to draw your attention to the questions below. Do you
> have any further input/feedback?
>
>
>
> *Questions that have been rephrased *
>
> The Response: Q11 (by George K)
>
> Examiner: Q13 (by staff), Q14 (by George K), Q15 (by Michael K, with an
> alternative question proposed by staff)
>
> Examiner Determination: Q3 (by Brian B), Q10 (by George K)
>
> Effect of Court Proceedings: Q1 (by David M)
>
> Others: Q3 (by staff)
>
>
>
> *Questions that were suggested to be deleted, or rephrased *
>
> Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q5
>
> Default: Q1
>
> Examiner Determination: Q8, Q10
>
> Others: Q5
>
>
>
> *Questions that have received further comments after the WG meeting *
>
> Examiner: Q3, Q4, Q14, Q15
>
> Remedies: Q3
>
>
>
> 2. Per Co-Chairs’ requests, staff have highlighted the following questions
> in yellow that could take longer time to respond in Providers’ view and
> our view. Comments aside contain rationale/details.
>
>
>
> *Questions that Providers may need longer time to respond (45-60 days) *
>
> Communications: Q1
>
> The Complaint: Q4
>
> Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q2
>
> The Response: Q1, Q3(A)(B), Q4, Q5, Q10, Q14, Q15
>
> Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1
>
> Examiner: Q8, Q10, Q11
>
> Language: Q2, Q3, Q4
>
> Default: Q2
>
> Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9
>
> Remedies: Q2, Q5
>
> Determinations and Publication: Q3, Q4
>
> Appeal: Q1
>
> Others: Q3, Q4
>
>
>
> *Question to the Sub Team*: When the questions are transmitted to the
> Providers, should they be separated from the “faster to answer” questions?
> Does it matter if they stay in the current order?
>
>
>
> 3. During the call yesterday, Rebecca Tushnet indicated that her research
> findings of URS decisions will be shared soon. While staff are not
> completely sure about the categories of information she was collecting, we
> identified some questions that her research yields may likely provide
> (partial) answers, especially the questions that may require Providers to
> review URS Determinations. Our assumption is that Complaints, Responses,
> and party submissions may not be included in Rebecca’s research.
>
>
>
> *Questions that Rebecca Tushnet’s Research Yields May Provide (Partial)
> Answers *
>
> The Complaint: Q4, Q8, Q9, Q10
>
> Fees: Q2
>
> The Response: Q1, Q5, Q12, Q14, Q15
>
> Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1
>
> Examiner: Q8
>
> Language: Q3, Q4
>
> Default: Q2
>
> Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9
>
> Remedies: Q2
>
> Determinations and Publication: Q1, Q3, Q4
>
> Appeal: Q1, Q2
>
>
>
> *Question to the Sub Team: *Assuming Rebecca’s research data will be
> shared before next Tuesday, should these questions be sent to the Providers
> *AFTER* the WG/Sub Team checks Rebecca’s research yields? Alternatively,
> Rebecca’s research data can be directly forwarded to the Providers once it
> is ready to share, and Providers can reference the data themselves when
> formulating responses. Staff will follow up with Rebecca on sharing the
> data. Welcome your feedback/input on the approach.
>
>
>
> 4. Staff would like to suggest to include some introductory text at the
> beginning of the proposed questions. For example:
>
>
>
> *You are only being asked to* *formulate responses insofar as you have
> the knowledge or ability to do so as professional URS service Providers.
> The RPM PDP WG would be grateful to receive your responses by [insert
> suggested deadline], as the WG aims to discuss your responses during the
> ICANN62 Meeting. Thank you for your time and kind cooperation. *
>
>
>
> Please share your input/feedback on the introductory text, if any.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your time and contribution!
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180427/fe031164/attachment.html>