[Gnso-rpm-providers] Please use this UPDATED (FINAL) List of Provider questions (Re: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions)
Corwin, Philip
pcorwin at verisign.com
Tue May 1 12:48:16 UTC 2018
Can we get some compromise/closure on this question?
Michael wants to know if Providers seek a diversity of examiners based upon experience representing trademark owners/complainants and domain registrants/respondents, and if they track this.
Others feel strongly that this presumes that examiners are unable to remain neutral based on client representations, and that many clients may assume both roles and are not readily distinguishable.
My own personal view is that most examiners are faithful to their oath to be neutral, but that some diversity of background is good (as we presume that most judges are faithful to their oath to administer justice neutrally, but wouldn’t be comfortable if every judge was of one political outlook or the other).
On the other hand, I think diversity matters much less in the URS than the UDRP because there should be no room to interpret shades of grey – in fact, if a case exhibits shades of grey that require discretionary judgment it should be kicked to the UDRP or a courtroom. The main requirement for a URS examiner is the ability to recognize when a case presents a slam dunk, incontrovertible black-and-white instance of cybersquatting, and when it does not and therefore is not fit to be decided under this rapid RPM.
I hope we can get agreement today as the questions were supposed to be closed out last night. Thanks
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: Monday, April 30, 2018 8:29 PM
To: Cyntia King <cking at modernip.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Please use this UPDATED (FINAL) List of Provider questions (Re: FOR FINAL REVIEW: Consolidated List of Provider Questions)
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<mailto: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:
15. 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<mailto:cking at modernip.com>
O: +1 81-ModernIP
C: +1 818.209.6088
From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2018 7:15 PM
To: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 at 21:05
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: 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
_______________________________________________
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/20180501/e5216c06/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-rpm-providers
mailing list