[gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Wed Apr 18 16:50:05 UTC 2018


Here are some written comments on the "Consolidated Questions to URS
Providers" for consideration in today's call:

URS PROVIDERS

1. Communications, Q4 (page 1): also, renewals (as per various reports on
the mailing list about issues with regards to that);

2. Communications, Q5 (page 1): no need for "BERO" acronym, as the term is
only used once in the entire document.

3. Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain, Q5 (page 3): this one seems
somewhat silly: "Are you following the URS Rules 4c"? Do you honestly
expect anyone to answer with "No, you caught us!" Detection of
non-compliance would obviously come from other sources, not the providers
themselves. A better question is something like "What documentation/records
do you maintain that provide proof of compliance with the relevant provider
notifications to registrants?" (and then that could be audited/checked for
actual compliance, rather than expecting anyone to answer with "No.")

4. The Response, Q11 (page 5): This appears to be a question targeted to
registrants (i.e. those making responses), not Providers (i.e. length of
time to respond) Providers should be there to be neutrally implementing the
policies adopted, rather than opining as to whether the deadline to respond
is long enough. I notice there's no balancing question asking "Should there
be a limitations period, after which no complaint can be filed?" (i.e.
statute of limitations, laches, etc.) in the "The Complaint" section.
Saying that one should be "keeping in mind that the URS is supposed to
operate with rapidity" also would affect the answers, thus creating a bias
in the expected answers.

5. Examiner: additional questions: a) Has any Examiner ever been removed
from the pool of Examiners for any reason? If so, why? What behaviours
would disqualify/bar an Examiner from  future cases? b) Is one permitted to
continue be an Examiner if one has represented a client in a domain dispute
(URS or UDRP) where there was a determination that the complaint was an
abuse of the process? c) What is the procedure for assigning examiners?
(i.e. how large is the pool of examiners, is it randomly assigned; some
studies suggest a large number of cases are handled by a relatively small
number of potential examiners)

6. In-Person Hearings, Q1 (page 8): I'd remove this question entirely. Or,
if it's kept, this should open up far more serious due process concerns,
like lack of cross-examination of witnesses, discovery, etc.

7. Default, Q1: This is really intended for registry operators, but even
then, we know the answer already, namely that registry operators *don't*
have such technical capability to prevent changing the contents of a site.
Only the webhosting provider could conceivably do that (and that's
typically not going to be the registry operator).

8. Default, Q2: Don't we have these stats already, from Berry Cobb's work?
Why ask questions when all the cases are public and we should have those
stats via the decisions? The more relevant modification might be how many
attempted to submit *after* 6 months (i.e. where it would be outside the
policy)

9. Examiner Determination: additional questions, (a) "Does the provider
have clerks or other staff that 'ghost-write' decisions for Examiners,
before the Examiner has made a determination independently, that the
Examiner can simply sign their name to if they agree with it?

10. Effect of Court Proceedings, Q1 (page 10): also of interest is legal
proceedings *after* a URS (not just before/during).

11. Others, Q3 (page 12): can get that answer from ICANN itself? Why ask
the provider?

12. Others, Q4 (page 12): question seems incomplete. Suppose the answer is
just "Yes." How do we use that as an answer to forumulate policy, if we
don't know what those communications are?? Again, it seems like we should
get the answers from ICANN itself.

13. Others, Q6 (page 12): Why is this targeted at Respondents, rather than
Complainants (and also their counsel)? Registrants are *already*
sanctioned, via suspension of the domain name. Also, what "process" are we
talking about --- the URS process being "abused" (violating some rules of
the URS procedure), or are we talking about abuse of the trademarks (i.e.
cybersquatting) which is entirely separate from the *process* of dispute
resolution.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/



On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:34 PM, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
wrote:

> Thanks Ariel,
>
>
>
> Further to the below, attached is a summary helpfully outlined by Berry
> and agreed on at the last meeting of the Documents Sub Team.
>
>
>
> As is noted below, if we don’t get time to look at this tomorrow we can do
> so during the next call on 25-Apr.
>
>
>
> You will see that there are a few references to providers/other Sub Teams,
> or guidance from the full WG, that may also be answered in the course of
> tomorrow’s call.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ariel
> Liang
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2018 6:15 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call
> on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>
>
>
> [Message sent on behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs]
>
>
>
> Dear WG members:
>
>
>
> Please find attached documents generated by the Sub Teams on
> Practitioners, and on Providers. There is a short description of each
> document below. These documents will be the presented by the Sub Team
> Chairs and serve as the main focus of our discussion on tomorrow’s WG call
> (Wed, 18 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC), with an aim to approving final versions
> expeditiously so that they can be sent out and responded to as soon as
> possible.
>
>
>
> *Providers Sub Team:*
>
> *1. Consolidated Questions to URS Providers*
>
> *2. Responses to Propose Questions to URS Providers: *
>
> -- The document includes responses already received from Providers during
> ICANN61 presentation and follow-up emails, as well as responses provided by
> staff research per Sub Team requests;
>
> -- Questions partially responded by Providers are also included in the
> document to show why these questions are directed to specific Provider(s)
>
>
>
> *Practitioners Sub Team:* *URS Practitioner Background Experience and
> Perspective*
>
>
>
> Considerable work has gone into these documents and we thank the Sub Teams
> for their time, effort and care. As Co-Chairs, we urge that edits be
> proposed with great care, as balances were carefully considered by the Sub
> Teams.
>
>
>
> A separate URS Documents Sub Team Summary Report being edited by Brian
> Beckham will be provided shortly. Time-allowing, we will consider this
> Summary Report tomorrow, otherwise, on 4/25.
>
>
>
> Best to all,
>
> Philip & Kathy
>
>
>
> *From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Friday, April 13, 2018 at 2:20 PM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18
> April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear RPM PDP WG members,
>
>
>
> Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 18 April
> 2018, scheduled for 1700 UTC:
>
>
>
> Proposed Agenda:
>
>    1. Roll call (via WebEx and phone bridge only); updates to Statements
>    of Interest
>    2. Status reports - with specific recommendations for next steps and
>    timeline - from the three URS Sub Teams (Documents, Practitioners,
>    Providers)
>    3. Discussion/agreement on next steps for the three URS Sub Teams in
>    view of the current Phase One timeline
>    4. Notice of agenda for 25 April meeting
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Colorful silhouette of a woman’s head, representing the theme of
> the World IP Day campaign.]
> <http://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/index.html?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2018>
>
>
>
> *Powering change: Women in innovation and creativity World Intellectual
> Property Day 2018 April 26 *wipo.int/ipday
> <http://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/index.html?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2018>
>    #worldipday
>
>
>
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic
> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses
> prior to opening or using.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> 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/20180418/a800d0c4/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list