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

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Wed May 2 02:53:38 UTC 2018 

​Dear colleagues, Mary​,

Thanks, Mary and Ariel, for working to update the copy.

Here are my final comments to Proposed Final List of Questions to URS
Providers - 1 May 2018.pdf :-

*Communications Q2*
Good to go.

*The Complaint Q3*
Alternative (a) is my preference

*The Response Q1, Q5, Q11, Q14*

   - Agreeable to the merging of Q1 and Q5 as undertaken by staff.
   - Q11, Q14 are good to go.

*The Examiner Q13, Q14, Q15*

   - Q13 and Q15 are good to go
   - Q14 - again, yes to deletion

*Default Q1*
*I like and support the language in staff's alternative (b). Thank you to
staff for re-framing the intent of my alternative (a) so nicely.*

*Examiner Determination Q2, Q9, Q10*

   - Yes, please delete Q2 and Q9
   - Q10(a) and (b) are good to go (are we retaining the Providers'
   Responses in the final copy?)

*Remedies Q2*
Agreeable to Q2 as worded. It serves as a follow on to Communications Q5(C).



*Effect of Court Proceedings Q1No one else weighed in on this question?
While I am rather ambivalent to the current wording, I think the original
wording better reflects a more focused intent to the question.*


*Current: To your knowledge, have there been instances of legal proceedings
relating to URS proceedings and, if so, what effect did such instance(s)
have?vs.Original: How often, if ever, was a related legal proceeding
initiated prior to or during a URS proceeding? What was the effect on the
URS proceeding?*

*Appeal Q2*
Yes, delete Q2

*Others Q3, Q5*

   - Q3 is good to go
   - Q5 - please delete


As for the other marked questions, I am shifting my position to mirror that
of Phil's as stated on pg 14 which I understand is to discard questions for
which Providers have already given complete answers, but where the
completeness of Providers answers are in doubt, to include our
questions, *irrespective
of the analysis conducted by Rebecca Tushnet and her team*. This position
applies to:

   - The Complaint Q4, Q10
   - Fees Q2
   - The Response Q3
   - Language Q3
   - Examiner Determination Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9
   - Determinations and Publication Q1, Q3


Thanks,

Justine
-----

On 2 May 2018 at 09:39, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Thank you all for your very timely and thoughtful comments, in some cases
> (like Justine) in very thorough and helpful detail. Please find attached,
> for what staff hopes is a final review by this Sub Team, an updated List of
> Consolidated URS Provider Questions. This version reflects what we believe
> are the most recent agreements within the Sub Team, incorporates new
> suggested changes from the last version circulated, and for ease of review
> discards most of the previous redlined text that were either merely
> typos/formatting, or that reflected “old” comments that have since been
> resolved or superseded.
>
>
>
> As you review this version, please note the following:
>
>    - We have highlighted in yellow those questions in the main text where
>    we believe a Sub Team decision still needs to be made, or that otherwise
>    requires additional clarification;
>    - We have highlighted text in some comment boxes in yellow as well –
>    these generally indicate follow up information which in staff’s belief
>    answers some questions or provides additional context;
>    - In cases where additional staff review – either of the data we
>    compiled for the URS Documents Sub Team or via an initial review of
>    Professor Rebecca Tushnet’s data results – seemed to us to have provided
>    the full answer to a question, we have also highlighted the question in
>    grey as being suggested for DELETION and crossed it out in the main text.
>    Please note that this means, in a few cases, we have *not*
>    incorporated a Sub Team suggestion to retain a question. We have, however,
>    retracted our previous suggestions for some other deletions where our
>    follow up review of the data seemed to show at best a partial answer to a
>    question. We welcome the Sub Team’s confirmation or correction of these few
>    staff suggestions.
>
>
>
> We hope this is helpful to you as you review the final proposed list of
> questions. As mentioned previously, our aim is to send the questions out
> before the end of the week; as such, it will be greatly appreciated if you
> can *limit any comments to substantive concerns that have not yet been
> raised previously; or to providing guidance on the remaining questions
> where the text specifies the need to choose a final formulation; or to
> correct any errors or omissions on the staff’s part*. Please be so kind
> as to revert by *1200 UTC on Thursday 3 May*.
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel & 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/20180502/eea0fa08/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed Final List of Questions to URS Providers - 1 May 2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 281491 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180502/eea0fa08/ProposedFinalListofQuestionstoURSProviders-1May2018-0001.pdf>

More information about the Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list