[gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call

Jon Nevett jon at donuts.email
Fri Dec 1 20:04:18 UTC 2017


Thanks Julie.  I may have missed it, but I had asked on a prior call that we add a question regarding whether a losing respondent may renew the domain name at issue at all, for one more year (like the complainant), during the pendency of an appeal, or forever.

Thanks!

Jon


> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Susan,
> 
> Thanks so much for catching that!  I tried saving it again as a PDF, but it still comes out truncated; I’m not sure why.  In any case, I’ve uploaded it as a Word document and it looks fine that way.
> 
> I’ve also attached the file.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Julie
> 
> From: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>
> Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:35 PM
> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
> 
> Hi Julie, thanks for these notes from the call.  Regarding the revised table – there is a link here (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729948>) to a version of the table of 30 November, however only part of the table is displaying (I tried downloading too and it made no difference).  Would you mind re-uploading please – assuming this is the revised table?
> 
> Thanks
> Susan
> 
> Susan Payne
> Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
> 
> E: susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
> D: +44 20 7421 8255
> T: +44 20 7421 8299
> M: +44 7971 661175
> 
> 
> From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
> Sent: 30 November 2017 16:51
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from 30 November Working Group Call
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> The action items noted by staff from the Working Group call held on 30 November are as follows:
> 
> Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are:
> 1) Has it been used?
> 2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled?
> 3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences?
> 4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?
> 5) How many managed to prevail?
> Action Items:
> Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming)
> WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach.
> If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.
> 
> Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?
> Action Item: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated.
> 
> Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated?
> Action Item: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.
> 
> Revised Table:
> Action Item: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes.  Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording.  The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki.
> 
> Best regards,
> Julie
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
> <URS Sub Team Questions Table - 30 November 2017.docx>_______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171201/a69514d7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171201/a69514d7/signature-0001.asc>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list