[gnso-rpm-wg] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 18 April 2018
Justine Chew
justine.chew at gmail.com
Thu Apr 19 14:07:47 UTC 2018
Hi Brian,
Thanks for your note. I'd like to seek greater clarity on your 1st bullet
point -- is the Documents Sub-team speaking of procedural anomalies or
mistakes in the implementation of an issued Determination, meaning not due
to an error on the part of the relevant Provider?
Thanks,
Justine
-----
On 19 April 2018 at 21:39, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> Thanks Julie,
>
>
>
> As I mentioned on last night’s call, in the hopes it is still timely to
> get this to the Providers Sub Team, the two items the Documents Sub Team
> wished to refer to the Providers Sub Team are:
>
>
>
> · that the Providers Sub Team consider including a question to
> the providers about whether procedural anomalies or mistakes have been
> raised by any party following the issuance of a Determination
>
> (one example that was noted during the Documents Sub Team’s discussion was
> the resolution of a domain name to particular Name Servers following
> issuance of a Determination)
>
>
>
> · an observation by the representative of a URS provider (FORUM)
> that providers had encountered some difficulties in communications with
> registries
>
> (the Providers Sub Team has included some language-related questions that
> may partially cover this issue)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Julie
> Hedlund
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2018 9:23 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 18 April 2018
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from
> the Working Group call held on 18 April 2018 (1700 UTC). Staff have
> posted to the wiki space the action items and 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
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>
>
> 1. *Questions for URS Practitioners*:
> 1. Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested
> revisions by 18 April;
> 2. WG members are encouraged to provide any further
> comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday,
> 24 April;
> 3. Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before
> the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April.
> 2. *Questions for Providers*:
>
>
> 1. Staff will recirculate the documents for review on 18 April;
> 2. WG members will provide comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20
> April;
> 3. Staff will produce a redlined document for the Sub Team to
> review by Monday, 23 April;
> 4. Sub Team will provide input/feedback on the new
> suggestions/edits by Tuesday, 24 April;
> 5. Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before
> the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April.
> 1. *Report from the Documents Sub Team*:
>
>
> 1. Staff will recirculate the report on 18 April;
> 2. WG members will review and provide comments on the list.
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> 1. Sub Team from Practitioners:
>
>
>
> -- Moving forward on the questions for practitioners and providers does
> not affect the discussion concerning whether to move URS to Phase 1.
>
> -- Discussion of the final form of the questions will extend to the next
> call.
>
> -- Long process to get here: We presented an interim report in Puerto
> Rico. Decided in the Sub Team that we would do a smaller group of
> volunteers to get the questions in good working order.
>
> -- Goal was to make this a document that was manageable for the party that
> is receiving the questions to encourage them to respond. Need to balance
> that with ensuring we covered topics.
>
> -- Everyone was very satisfied with what the Sub Team put together.
>
>
>
> *General Questions*:
>
>
>
> *Question 3: Overall, leaving aside the result of the proceeding, how was
> your experience with the process of a URS proceeding?*
>
> -- Collect information on which provider you used. Indicate if you are
> the complainant or the respondent.
>
> -- It should also capture which provider was used for that
> proceeding/appeal, as the experience might differ across providers.
>
> -- We will track who is responding; staff would be able to determine if it
> is coming from complainant/rep or respondent/rep.)
>
>
>
> *Procedural Issues*:
>
>
>
> *Question 4: Are you aware of any issues the Respondent may have had
> regarding the receipt of the notice of the proceeding? *
>
> -- the complainant wouldn’t necessary know. Maybe "were there any issues"
> could be written as "any difficulties"
>
> -- That was asked to the providers in the other PDF, but it's more
> suitable for registrants/URS lawyers.
>
>
>
> *Question 5: When involved as Respondent or its representative in a URS
> proceeding did you experience any issues with receiving notice of the
> proceeding?*
>
> -- Instead of “you” change to “respondent”.
>
> -- May be important to include a caveat that this wouldn’t include any
> delay from the respondent delaying in sending to his representative.
>
>
>
> *Question 6: Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS
> decision?*
>
> -- Add: “If so why?”
>
>
>
> *Question 7: If yes to question 6, from the choices below how would you
> characterize your experience with the appeal process after a URS
> proceeding?*
>
> -- Collect information on which provider you used. Indicate if you are
> the complainant or the respondent.
>
> -- It should also capture which provider was used for that
> proceeding/appeal, as the experience might differ across providers.
>
> -- We will track who is responding; staff would be able to determine if it
> is coming from complainant/rep or respondent/rep.)
>
>
>
> *Substantive Issues*:
>
>
>
> *Question 3: Do you believe that the URS is being used for the types of
> cases for which it was intended, namely, clear cases of abuse?*
>
> -- Question was not intended to deal with whether the panel has handled it
> appropriately.
>
>
>
> *Practical Issues*:
>
>
>
> *Question 1: Do you believe the current mechanisms for proving use in a
> URS case are adequate?*
>
> -- Include a link to the current mechanisms for proving use.
>
>
>
> *Question 3: Do you believe the filing fee for a URS is appropriate?*
>
> -- Add a text box: “Please suggest what you think is an appropriate filing
> fee.”
>
>
>
> *Question 6: Do you believe the existing time frames for submitting
> filings in a URS proceeding are appropriate?*
>
> -- Include a link to the existing time frames.
>
>
>
> *Other*:
>
>
>
> *Question 1: If you chose not to file a URS in a particular matter, what
> was the reason? Please choose from the following options:*
>
> -- Isn't the question limited to scope to circumstances when the URS is
> not chosen?
>
> -- Allow in each section to provide additional comments/general comments.
> Could add a text box to collect general thoughts on URS, although not sure
> how we could organize/use these responses.
>
>
>
> Can we add a question about the general applicability of the URS, e.g.
> should be extended to all gTLDs?"? What is the benefit of asking the
> practitioners this question? This is something the WG will consider.
>
> -- We could ask, in the “If the URS was available in all gTLDs, would you
> use it? Why or why not?”
>
> -- Look into whether that feature of the mechanism – whether there is
> value to change it from the practitioners’ perspective.
>
> -- Do we want to go into this now? Trying to get practitioners’ feedback
> on using URS. May not be able to get a useful response to that question.
>
>
>
> General Discussion:
>
> Does not ask how many cases they brought in terms of cybersquatting. How
> many were diverted to the URS? What is the primary dispute mechanism?
> What a practitioner decided to do with their clients trademarks and how
> have they proceeded.
>
> -- We do get into whether or not you chose the RPM, but tried to avoid
> getting into attorney-client issues. That is a sensitive issue.
>
> -- That is really an issue if you look at people who have filed UDRP.
> This is meant to go to URS practitioners.
>
> -- If we are going into what they have done in terms of court filings then
> it is a skewed area since you don’t have everyone saying what they have
> done or not done.
>
> -- It’s a good concept but no way to make a connection except for on a
> case-by-case basis.
>
> -- Not appropriate. This survey is for URS practitioners not all
> practitioners -- e.g. those who only filed UDRPs or court cases.
>
>
>
> 2. Next Steps:
>
>
>
> -- The Practitioners Sub Team can continue to work with staff to develop
> the survey, Forum has volunteered to help us reach the practitioners – who
> and how to reach people. Need to be cognizant not to reveal who are the
> respondents.
>
> -- Practitioners Questions: Hold open changes to the questions until next
> week’s call.
>
> -- Providers Questions: Review the questions and get it to the WG list by
> COB Friday, 20 April so it can be considered by the Sub Team members on the
> list and then staff will provide an amended document next week.
>
> -- Documents Sub Team: Has a few questions to refer to the Providers Sub
> Team that may already have been considered.
>
> -- Want to get Questions to practitioners and providers by the first week
> of May so that we can have results back in late May or early June so we can
> have informed discussions in Panama City.
>
>
>
> 3. Co-Chair:
>
> -- Brian Beckham has indicated his interested and is preparing a statement
> of qualifications.
>
> -- Time pressure with Council because the GNSO Council will need to
> approve in May.
>
> [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/20180419/dbea694d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list