[gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - Please Comment by Friday, 20 April

[Ariel Liang]

Hello everyone,

Thank you all for reviewing the proposed questions to URS Providers, and thanks to those who have provided comments and suggestions. Staff have consolidated the comments/suggestions and sent the redlined document to the Providers Sub Team to review and consider incorporation. Staff will share Sub Team’s feedback/input before the WG meeting on Wed, 25 April.

Thank you, and have a great weekend!

Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

From: "Fossen, Renee" <rfossen at adrforum.com>
Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 11:56 AM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - Please Comment by Friday, 20 April

Please see my responses to the Provider questions below.  Please note that there are additional questions that seek data and information that are not readily available and will require query development before an answer is able to be provided.   As the Provider with the most determinations, it will take Forum a considerable amount of time to answer the questions as drafted.

The Complaint

  *   Question 4 – requires the Provider to review decisions and potentially, party submissions to draw its own inferences as to what led the examiner to make a determination.
The Response

  *   Question 1 – The second question in Question 1 requires the review decisions and potentially party submissions.  It may also require the Provider to draw its own inferences as to what led the examiner to make the determination.
  *   Question 4 – Provider will not be able to answer this question as written as to what the Examiner considered unless it was for some reason it was included in a determination, which it likely would not.
  *   Question 14 – requires the review decisions and responses in addition to requiring Forum to determine what an Examiner found persuasive.
  *   Question 15 – requires the review decisions and party submissions.  With respect to domain investors this may or may not be clear from the submissions.  Unlikely Providers have retained such information separately.
Language

  *   Question 4 – requires the Provider to review decisions  and potentially responses and in some instances may call for Provider to make certain assumptions.
Default

  *   Question 3 – requires the Provider to review decisions and speak to the thought process of Examiners.
Examiner Determination

  *   Questions 3, 6, & 8 – requires the Provider to review decisions and  in some instances requests that the Provider speak to the thought process of Examiners.
Remedies

  *   Question 4 – Is the question seeking an opinion from the Providers?
  *   Question 5 – The Providers did not create the requirements, so would not be able to speak to any perceived inconsistency.

Renee Fossen
Director of Arbitration

Forum
6465 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 480
Minneapolis, MN  55405
Phone  952.516.6456
E-mail  rfossen at adrforum.com<mailto:rfossen at adrforum.com>
www.adrforum.com



From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:58 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - Please Comment by Friday, 20 April

Dear All,

Staff are recirculating the two documents developed by the Providers Sub Team:


  1.  Consolidated questions to URS Providers
  2.  Responses to proposed questions (for referencing responses already received to questions excluded from the “consolidated questions to URS Providers” document)

Please be so kind to provide your comments/suggestions to the “consolidated questions” document directly on the mailing list by COB Friday, 20 April.

Kindly note:

  *   When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are sent to the Providers; 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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180421/94d75961/attachment-0001.html>