[Gnso-rpm-providers] Please use this UPDATED (FINAL) List of Provider questions (Re: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions)

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Mon Apr 30 06:46:15 UTC 2018 

​​Dear colleagues, Mary,

Responding to Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - updated 29 April
2018.pdf,

*Proposed Introductory Text*
I am ambivalent to whether there is a need to "suggest" that Providers'
responses can be by way of separate parts so that the WG can at least
receive some (if not all) responses by 15 June. *In any case the current
text is acceptable to me*. Thank you to staff.

*The Complaint Q3. re .SMD files*
*No objection* to including Michael Karanicolas' added supplementary
questions

*​The Complaint Q4. URS Procedure 1.2.6.3*
Noted Renee and Ivett's comments. I think drawing inferences is fine in
terms of reviewing decisions and identifying if Examiners​ have cited any
circumstances which do not match the list under Procedure 1.2.6.3. It is
useful to have the Providers' indications as to their results and compare
the same to Rebecca Tushnet's research. *So I propose we retain Q4 as is*.

*Fees. Q2: filing of Response and paying Response Fee*
Again, it is useful to have the Providers' indications as to their results
and compare the same to Rebecca Tushnet's research. *So I propose we retain
Q2 as is.*

*Notice of Complain and Locking of Domain Q2: receipt of Notice of
Complaint*
​I suspect that the intent of this question ​to be already covered in
Communications Q2 and hence this would be a duplicate of some kind. *So I
propose this Q2 be deleted*. I am, of course, happy to be corrected if I
have misunderstood the implications. Do we recall who proposed this
question?

​ *Notice of Complain and Locking of Domain Q5: "a normal domain name
lifecycle"* ​
​I support staff's suggestion (which I believe has been reflected in WG
discussions) to *delete this Q5*.

*​The Response Q1: abusive Complaint​*
​Let's see what Forum and MFSD come back with. If there is nothing detailed
to be gleaned from their responses (eg. no Complaint ruled abusive) then so
be it. That response is in itself an useful indication. At least we have
asked. *So I propose we retain this Q1 as is.​*

​*The Response Q3, Q4​ and Q10*
*​I am* *in favour of retaining these 3 questions as they stand*.

​​*The Response Q11: time to respond by Respondents*
*I support Cynthia's comment and proposed alternative question.*

​*The Response Q14: URS Procedure 5.7*
*I am in favour of Staff's comment* to replace the first original question
with the proposed text and enjoin the same with the second original
question of "were such facts persuasive".

*The Response Q15. FORUM Supplemental Rule 5(d)(ii)*
​ It would be useful to have FORUM's response independently to Rebecca
Tushnet's research. *So I support retaining Q15B) as is*. ​

​*Stay of the Administrative Proceeding Q1*
*Please retain Q1 as is.​*

​*Examiner​ Q7, Q8, Q10, Q11.*
I am* in favour of retaining all these questions as they stand*. No changes.

​*Examiner Q13: to do with RDNH*
Fair question, *acceptable as written (minus abusive Complaint or)*

*Examiner Q14. Pool and assignment of Examiners*
I actually take the view that this question has been answered in totality
by Providers (see Providers' responses) and *do not see why this Q14 should
not be deleted altogether*.

​*Examiner Q15: selection of Examiners*
I like the Alternative question proposed by staff with/post comments by
Michael Karanicolas and Cyntia King(?) with suggested edits highlighted in
bold below:

15. What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a
diversity of relevant experience, e.g. have experience in representing
Respondents as well as Complainants?* If you  do take steps, please
elaborate on whether they have been effective in generating a pool of
diversely experienced Examiners.   *
​
​*Language Q​2, Q3, Q4*
I am *agreeable to retaining these questions as worded in copy*.

​*Default Q1: prohibition on changing site content*
Now that we are somewhat confident that Providers have no control over
content of a site, *​I propose to turn the question around to ask if a
Registrant has exploited this 'loophole'* to change site content then
submitting "evidence of changed content" in its Response to defeat a
Complaint. *I welcome comments, edits to the following:*

​1. With reference to URS Procedure 6.2, *to your knowledge, has there been
Responses filed appending evidence of site content which directly conflicts
with the Complainant's claim? If yes, did such evidence point to the
Registrant having changed its site content during the Default period?*
(to retain bulleted URS Procedure 6.2 as reference)

*​Default Q2: URS Rule 12(f)*
*Please retain Q2 as is.*
​
*Examiner Determination Q1, Q2, Q6, Q8, Q9*
I am* in favour of retaining all these questions as they stand*. No changes.

*Examiner Determination Q3: URS Rule 13(a)*
I am agreeable to the intent and wording of Q3, save that *perhaps the word
"framework" or equivalent should be added after "the USR"* at the end.

*Examiner Determination Q10: on Examiner support*
I am in favour of George Kirikos' rewritten Q10, as it no longer mentions
"templates" (since we know that the Providers do provide respective
templates). However I suggest an editorial amendment : *please replace
"Does the Provider" with "Do you" in both parts (a) and (b)*. To retain
consistency throughout document.

*Remedies Q2 and Q3: registration extension*
Good point raised by staff regarding Q2 - and it seems Q2 is directly
connected to Communications Q5C), *can we link the two in a better way*?

*I am in favour of reformulating Q3 as suggested by staff.*


*Remedies Q5: anomalies or mistakes**Please retain Q5 as written.*

*Determinations and Publication Q3 and Q4*
*Please retain Q3 and Q4 as written.*

*Effect of Court Proceedings*
*I have a feeling that the original intent of the question is now being
obscured with the reworded question* -- I thought the original question
sought to understand whether Providers check of legal proceedings initiated
prior to or during a URS proceeding in order to exercise discretion whether
to suspend or terminate the URS proceeding or proceed to a Determination.
See URS Rule 17.
​
*​Appeal​ Q1: URS Rule 19(b)*
*1. How do you implement URS 19(b)? Do you conduct an administrative check
on the data of any additional evidence sought to be introduced? How do you
determine that the Appellant in seeking to introduce new evidence, is in
fact, providing evidence that is material to the Determination and clearly
pre-dates the filing of the Complaint?*

The 3rd part of Q1 relates to the task of administratively checking new or
additional evidence to assess whether it is admissible or not. The 2nd part
establishes whether Providers actually carry out this task or not. So I do
not understand the comment inserted by staff which I presume is from a
Provider.

*So, please retain Q1 as written.*

*Appeal Q2: % of 3-member Appeal Panel*
I am agreeable to staff suggestion to *delete this question* since the
intent of it is covered by Documents Sub Team's analysis.

*Others Q3 and Q4*
​I am *agreeable to the edits made to Q3* on communications with ICANN.

*Q4 should stand as is.*

​*Others Q5.*
​I have difficulties with Q5 as currently worded. In the first part of Q5,
it is not clear what is meant by "abuse the process" because the 2nd part
goes on to refer to "... an indication of Respondent abuse, beyond bad
faith registration and use of a domain name".

There seems to be disconnect between "abuse of process" meaning abuse of
the use of URS proceedings versus "... abuse, beyond bad faith registration
and use of a domain name" which is the subject of URS proceedings.

*I agree with the WG comment to remove this question if no suggestion for
rephrasing is put forward.*


Thanks,

Justine
-----

On 30 April 2018 at 07:15, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> With several additional suggestions received after the suggested Friday
> deadline, staff has produced an UPDATED suggested List of Final Questions
> for the URS Providers (attached, as previously, as a PDF). You are kindly
> requested to please provide any concerns or comments you may have to this
> list by *close of business in your time zone on Monday 30 April.*
>
>
>
> For your convenience, the only changes that were made from the last
> version circulated late on Friday were:
>
>    - *The Complaint, Q3* (Page 2 of the PDF) – Michael Karanicolas had
>    previously suggested an additional sub-question regarding the SMD file that
>    we had inadvertently not included in the Friday version (note that staff
>    has responded with a comment, and we are hoping this can either be verified
>    or corrected by a more knowledgeable WG member).
>
>
>
>    - *Examiners, Q15* (Page 8) – In relation to the alternative question
>    about examiner selection proposed by staff, Michael K and Cyntia King have
>    each suggested an alternative, additional sub-question.
>
>
>
>    - *Examiner Determination, Q10* (Page 11) – We have updated this
>    question extensively, following Cyntia’s agreement with the latest version
>    proposed by George Kirikos. The document now reflects that updated language.
>
>
>
> We continue to ask that Sub Team members review the document to ensure
> that the latest edits capture the WG’s latest agreements, and so that you
> can provide your thoughts on whether or not to include those questions for
> which staff believes the providers may already have provided answers or for
> which staff believes Professor Rebecca Tushnet’s research may provide at
> least a partial answer. Staff will be confirming what specific data fields
> Professor Tushnet will have coded this week, so we should be able to send
> out the final questions to all three providers, assuming the Sub Team signs
> off, before the end of the week.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
>
>
>
> *From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> *Date: *Friday, April 27, 2018 at 21:05
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
> *Subject: *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
>    <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> on
> behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 11:42
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180430/9abdbe3d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - updated 29 April 2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 233150 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180430/9abdbe3d/ConsolidatedQuestionstoURSProviders-updated29April2018-0001.pdf>

More information about the Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list