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

Tue May 1 00:28:47 UTC 2018

Hi,

That's not an alternate wording - it's a completely different question. But
if you want to propose it, I have no objection to it being included as #16,
alongside the question which I proposed.

Best,

Michael

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Cyntia King <cking at modernip.com> wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
>
>
> How do you & the group feel about this wording:
>
>
>
> 15.     What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners
> have a diversity of relevant experience?  (E.g. experience in academic
> research, internet policy development, representation of Respondents or
> Complainants in domain name disputes, etc.)
>
> (b) If so, please explain.
>
>
>
> _________________________
>
> [Staff suggested text:
>
>    1. What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have
>    a diversity of relevant experience, e.g. have experience representing
>    Respondents as well as Complainants?
>
> (b) If so, please explain.]
>
>
>
>
>
> *Cyntia King*
>
> E:  cking at modernip.com
>
> O:  +1 81-ModernIP
>
> C:  +1 818.209.6088
>
> [image: MIP Composite (Email)]
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers
> *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2018 3:27 PM
> *To:* mary.wong at icann.org; gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Please use this UPDATED (FINAL) List
> of Provider questions (Re: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider
> Questions)
>
>
>
> Thanks to staff.
>
>
>
> On Q3 for the Complaint, how about changing the second part  of both
> questions to-- Can the categories of goods and services and jurisdiction
> of the trademark be read from the SMD file; if so, is it human or
> machine-readable? – I think that will yield more precise answers.
>
>
>
> On Q15 for Examiners I prefer the staff alternative plus subpart B
>
>
>
> On Q 10 for Examiner Determination I am fine with the reformulation – but
> do we need to ask this given the extensive responses we already have?
>
>
>
>
>
> I would not ask questions where staff believes we have already received
> complete answers from the Providers – but if in doubt as to completeness,
> include the questions.
>
>
>
> I would include questions that may be somewhat illuminated by Prof.
> Tushnet’s research and analysis because, as stated below, that may only
> provide partial answers.
>
>
>
> These are my personal views and should not be given any more or less
> weight than those of other sub-team members.
>
>
>
> 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
> <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 29, 2018 7:15 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Please use this UPDATED
> (FINAL) List of Provider questions (Re: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List
> of Provider Questions)
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> 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/20180430/841aa223/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/20180430/841aa223/image002-0001.png>