[Gnso-rpm-providers] FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions

Sat Apr 28 16:05:56 UTC 2018

Hi Mary,

I apologize if my comments were unclear.

I believe Examiner Q15 should be stricken from the survey.

The question was first debated in the Provider sub-team, then referred to the full RPM working group.

On the recent RPM call, there was, again, discussion but no consensus; simply a call from Phil Corwin to rephrase the question.

This question pre-supposes that “a roster that includes a balance of lawyers” is desirable, definable & achievable.  I contend that all of these assumptions are incorrect & have asked that the full working group discuss such a policy before putting the question to Providers.

I find a similar pre-supposition exists in the language suggested by staff.

I would support a question that doesn’t assume a bifurcated & partisan tone, such as:

“Examiner Q15:  Do you take any steps to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience?  If so, please explain.”

Cyntia King

E:  cking at modernip

O:  +1 81-ModernIP

C:  +1 818.209.6088

From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 8:05 PM
To: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions

Dear all,

Please find attached the FINAL Consolidated List of Questions for the three URS Providers – final in the sense that, as you’ll recall, we’d asked the Working Group to provide their comments by close of business in their respective time zones today (Friday). Here are some updates to the last document that had been circulated:

*	Staff has included updated suggestions received on the mailing list up to 23.59 UTC today (Friday) – we note that the most recent discussion took place between Michael Karanicolas and Cyntia King (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002996.html) but as no additional text was suggested we have not incorporated those comments into the document; and
*	In view of what we understand to be the scope of Rebecca Tushnet’s research on all the URS cases, we have ventured to suggest either updates to or deletions of certain questions. You will find these highlighted in grey in the attachment (note that, as was the case in the last version, questions highlighted in yellow are those where either a provider has noted will require additional time, or that may be covered by other research, or that otherwise staff believed should be called to the Sub Team’s attention. Items highlighted in green represent questions where the Providers may have already provided some answers).

To avoid multiple competing versions, we are attaching this final list in PDF format. Please be so kind as to send your comments and suggestions via email to this list no later than close of business in your time zone on Monday 30 April.

Following this final review, staff will proceed to send out the list of finalized questions to the three providers as soon as we can, and will advise if we receive any additional clarifying or other questions from any of the providers. Thank you.

Best regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:42
To: "gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org> " <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org> >
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Updated Redline (version 26 April): Proposed Questions to URS Providers

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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180428/6f0ab014/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180428/6f0ab014/image002-0001.png>