<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">That works for me, Susan, thanks.<br><br>Just digressing a little. You triggered a memory .... I recall someone in the RPM WG (but can't recall who now) who interpreted the URS Rule 2(a) loosely such that if a Provider thought email and only email is a reasonable means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondents then that would be allowable. I don't think there is any merit to this interpretation. I believe URS Rule 2(a) is quite clear on the 2-fold obligation on the part of Providers, so I don't think there is a need to tighten the language in URS Rule 2(a). </div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><br>Regards,<br><br>Justine <br>-----</div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 01:09, Susan Payne <<a href="mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com">susan.payne@valideus.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="m_-1860617149359687825WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Regarding my action item, how about:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="color:#1f497d">ICANN Compliance<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="color:#1f497d">ICANN Compliance should be responsible for monitoring URS providers to ensure that they operate in accordance with the administrative requirements of the
URS and URS Rules, including, by way of example, requirements as to method, language and timing of communications and the publication of required information .
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="color:#1f497d">In view of the expedited nature of URS proceedings, ICANN Compliance should work with the URS Providers and relevant registries to rapidly address and resolve
any incidences of registry non-compliance with obligations relating to registry locking/unlocking and suspension. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#76923c">Susan Payne<br>
Head of Legal Policy</span></b><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">
</span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">| </span><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#c39209">Valideus Ltd<br>
</span></b><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#76923c"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">E: </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#76923c">susan.payne@valideus.com</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">
</span><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#76923c"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">D: +44 20 7421 8255<b><br>
</b>T: +44 20 7421 8299<b><br>
</b>M: +44 7971 661175<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Julie Hedlund<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 29 August 2018 14:42<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-rpm-providers] Actions & Notes: RPM Providers Sub Team 29 August 2018<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Dear All,</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the<span class="m_-1860617149359687825apple-converted-space"> </span>Providers<span class="m_-1860617149359687825apple-converted-space"> </span>Sub Team call held on
</span><span lang="EN-US">29 August<span style="color:black"> 2018 (12:00-13:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. <i>Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording.</i> The
recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki<span class="m_-1860617149359687825apple-converted-space"> </span>at</span>:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-29+Sub+Team+for+URS+Providers" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-29+Sub+Team+for+URS+Providers</a>.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">See also the attached referenced documents.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Best Regards,</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US">Julie<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">==</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEMS: </span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Susan Payne will suggest language for an overarching recommendation concerning the need for ICANN Compliance proactive monitoring.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Staff will update the Super Consolidated URS Table with the suggested edits agreed to by the Sub Team shown in redline. Note in the cover email that staff has inserted additional language
in the Education and Training section at the direction of the Sub Team. Ask for responses by COB Friday and if no objections the redlined document will be accepted by COB Friday.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">NOTES:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-US">Operational Fixes:<u></u><u></u></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A. THE COMPLAINT<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">4. Administrative review<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">A URS provider should check the websites of other URS and UDRP providers to ensure that a disputed domain name is not already subject to an open/active URS/UDRP proceeding.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- I think registrant is in the best position, but I'm assuming it's not difficult for the providers to check?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec -- page 5/6<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">Providers should modify their operational rules in terms of automatically populating the Complaint Form using WHOIS data.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-and-<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">GDD, [Providers, and Registries] should [jointly] develop
<s>a uniform system for interaction between the Providers and the Registries regarding registrant data that is unavailable in publicly accessible WHOIS
<u></u><u></u></s></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">[</span></i><span lang="EN-US">rules <i>
for the timely response by Registries to requests for non-public information from Providers]<u></u><u></u></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Not what sure we are suggesting -- what do we mean by "develop a uniform system for interaction" -- do we mean a system for timely response from the Providers?
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language with strikeouts and additional text in brackets.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">B. NOTICE<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1. Receipt by Registrant - Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">ADNDRC should change its operational rules to comply with URS Procedure 4.2, requiring that notice of the Complaint be transmitted [with translation] by the registrant via email, fax, and postal mail.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">2. Effect on Registry Operator - Notice requirements for Registry Operators<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">ICANN’s email addresses for Registry contacts (reached by Providers) should be kept up to date<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-and-<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">GDD, [Providers, and registries] should [jointly] develop a uniform system for interaction between the Providers and the Registries regarding Registry notice requirements<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- What does "(reached by Providers)" mean? Strike the parenthetical and change to "should be kept up to date for use by Providers".<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language with additional text in brackets.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">F. REMEDIES<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">3. Review of Implementation<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">There should be efforts undertaken to better inform and enhance the understanding by Registry Operators and Registrars of their role in the URS process<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">ACTION ITEM: Susan Payne will suggest language for an overarching recommendation concerning the need for ICANN Compliance proactive monitoring.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">J. LANGUAGE ISSUES<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1. Language issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of complaint, response, determination<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">ICANN should enforce the URS Rules 9 and URS Procedure 4.2 with respect to Providers communicating with the Registrant in the predominant language of the Registrant. In particular, as the WG has found that ADNDRC is
not in compliance with URS Procedure 4.2 and URS Rules 9, ICANN should request ADNDRC to change their operational rules and to translate the Notice of Complaint “into the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory”.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">M. URS PROVIDERS <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">Provider compliance with URS Rule 6(a) should be enforced. ADNDRC, in particular, should be required to list the backgrounds of all of their Examiners so that Complainants and Respondents can check for conflicts of
interest. <u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-US">Policy Proposals:<u></u><u></u></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A. THE COMPLAINT<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">6. Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">URS Rule 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint”.
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-and-<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">URS Procedure para 3.3 should be amended to enable modification of the Complaint within 2-3 days from disclosure of the full registration data by the URS Provider.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-and-<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">Outreach and education efforts should be undertaken via expert intermediaries to increase awareness and understanding of the common law concept of “Doe Complaint” in civil law jurisdictions, especially the EU.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Re: "WG to communicate with the EPDP Team about this issue: European civil law systems do not recognize the common law concept of "Doe Complaint", and the concept is not well understood in Europe" This could be addressed
in an informal note.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">B. NOTICE<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1. Receipt by Registrant -Notice (feedback from Complainant & Respondent)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">For “Doe Complaints’, Providers should [first] send notice to respondents [via the online registrant contact form and then by the required methods] as soon as relevant WHOIS data is forwarded by the registry.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language with additional text in brackets.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">E. DEFENSES<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1. Scope of Defenses<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">2. Unreasonable delay in filing a complaint (i.e. laches)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">All Providers should provide similar types and forms of guidance to their examiners.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-and-<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">Examiners should document their rationale in all issued Determinations; in particular, when an Examiner finds that a registrant has registered and used a domain in bad faith supporting facts should be cited.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">F. REMEDIES<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">2. Duration of Suspension Period<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">3. Review of Implementation<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">URS Technical Requirements 3 and Registry Requirement 10 should be amended, [and compliance efforts should be directed,] to address problems with the implementation of the relief awarded following a URS decision; the
implementation of a settlement (generally a domain transfer at the registrar level); and implementation of Complainant requests to extend a suspension.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Do we need to mention ICANN Compliance role at all? Reword accordingly.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">K. ABUSE OF PROCESS<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1. Misuse of the process, including by trademark owners, registrants and “repeat offenders”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">Penalties for the abuse of the process by the Respondent should be added to the URS Rules; this proposal should be published to solicit public comment on what type of procedural abuse should be sanctioned, and in what
manner.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Don't think that anything discussed in the Providers Sub team to support or oppose this notion. We could seek public comment on it.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Our "position" could be that this examination be for both Complainant and Respondent for fairness. But okay to action item to WG rather than as a recommendation.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Create a new section 3: Suggested Action Items: The WG should consider whether to include the following question in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment: “Are penalties for abuse of the
process by the Complianant or Respondent sufficient, or if not, or should they be expanded, and how?"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested approach.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Re: "WG to consider whether, in light of FORUM and MFSD feedback on use of WHOIS to help determine Respondent language, policy recommendations should be developed to handle language and related GDPR concerns."<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Not sure why this should be a concern since the information about the country should be available.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Agree GDPR should not be a concern insofar as country of Registrant is concerned.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Change from a recommendation to an action.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">L. EDUCATION & TRAINING <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1. Responsibility for education and training of complainants, registrants, registry operators and registrars<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">ICANN [should] develop easy-to-understand, multilingual, and linkable guidance (e.g. basic FAQs) for reference and informational purposes of both URS parties (Complainants and Respondents)<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-and-<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">URS Providers should develop additional clear and concise reference and informational materials specific to their service, practice, and website for the use and benefit of both URS parties.
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">M. URS PROVIDERS <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1. Evaluation of URS providers and their respective processes (including training of panelists)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">Explicit standards for [for the sanction and removal of Examiners should be considered”
<s>removal of Examiners based upon particular background and factors, such as continued representation of serial cybersquatters, or representation of parties found to have engaged in attempted reverse domain name hijacking, should be developed.</s><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- I don't think we identified that there was a problem.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Reword "Explicit standards for the sanction and removal of Examiners should be considered." Put into Section 3, Suggested Action Items.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- Accept the suggested revised language with strikeouts and additional text in brackets.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers</a></blockquote></div>