[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April

[George Kirikos]

Just a quick comment with regards to footnotes (e.g. page 5), is it
intended that this will be sent out to the practitioners as a PDF,
that they'll respond in some non-standard manner? Or will it be turned
into an online survey (e.g. SurveyMonkey, etc.) that they can fill
out? If it's the latter, then you'll want to shift those footnotes
into text that's directly below the relevant question.

Also, on page 5, question 3, shouldn't there be something with regards
to the response fees, appeal fees and/or other fees, instead of just
filing fees by complainants? For example, at NAF, the types of fees
are on page 9 of their supplemental rules:

http://www.adrforum.com/resources/URS/URS%20Supplemental%20Rules.pdf

Sincerely,

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



On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please see the attached revised document “URS Practitioner Background
> Experience and Perspective” based on the comments and suggestions received
> during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April.  Please review the document
> per the following action item highlighted below.  The suggested edits are
> indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document.
>
>
>
> Questions for URS Practitioners:
>
> Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by
> 18 April (DONE-Attached)
> WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB
> Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April;
> Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on
> Wednesday, 25 April.
>
>
>
> Please note:
>
> When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct
> typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a
> survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the
> substance.
> Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting
> edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential
> version confusion caused by Word file(s).
>
>
>
> Thank you for your time and review!
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg