[gnso-rpm-wg] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 25 April 2018

Wed Apr 25 17:07:27 UTC 2018

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the Working Group call held on 25 April 2018 (1200 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.

The referenced document is attached.

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items:

Questions for URS Practitioners: 
The Sub Team will finalize the questions by Monday, 30 April.
Staff will create a survey and send to the Practitioners.
Questions for Providers: 
Staff will close the document for review by Friday, 27 April and send it to the Sub Team for a final review.
The Sub Team will complete a review of the questions by COB Monday, 30 April.
Staff will send the questions to the Providers.
Notes:

1. Questions for URS Practitioners:

-- Question 3: Edit from George re: Question three – Reword as two separate questions – filing and response fees.

-- The Sub Team will finalize the questions by Monday, 30 April.

2. Questions for URS Providers:

-- Responses from most Providers that they can respond in 30 days for most questions, and 45-60 days for questions that require a review of decisions.

-- Close the document for review by this Friday, 27 April and then send to the Providers.

Review of the Questions:

Communications:

Question 2 – changes accepted.

Question 5 – new question b captures the concern from Brian Beckham, and c addresses George’s concern.

Question 6 – changes accepted.

Question 7 – changes accepted.

Complaints:

Question 4 – Correct the grammar; providers may need to consult with examiners.  Question stays as amended.  It can stay in and that we understand the limitations around it.

Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain

Question 5: This has been moved to another section, question 2 in Communications: Rule 4(c): "The electronic copy of the Notice of Complaint may be provided via email or an emailed link to an online platform requiring users to create an account." It can be deleted here.  George and Brian have accepted the edits.

The Response:

Question 1: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in.

Question 4: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in.

Question 11: Change to: “Have you received feedback that the Response period is inadequate?”

Question 14: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in.

Question 15: DELETE.  Concerned about the definition of “domain investors”.  It will be quite difficult if not impossible to get this information from providers.  Doesn’t seem much utility in the answers.  Also may be able to get some of this information from determination data being gathered by Rebecca.

Examiner:

Question 12b: No case of an abusive complaint – no entry in the abuse case database – so is this question still necessary?  Leave it in because we want to know if they have a policy.  Revise to include the URDP concept of RDNH.  Rewrite to ask whether the provider has a policy of allowing someone to be an examiner if they also represent complainants.  

Question 12c: is suggesting that part c of the question isn’t needed since we already have responses from the providers.  But there is a difference between how many examiners are on the roster and how many are actually deciding decisions.  Edit to make this a more targeted question regarding the size of the examiner pool, whether random assignment is used, etc. by COB 25 April.

Question 13: Providers would not know the status of their examiners.  Examiners may not be willing or able to say either.  Also seems to be suggesting that you can’t represent both respondents and complainants.  Not sure what is the point of the question.  ACTION: Rephrase to focus on panel selection policy to encourage diversity in trademark practice.  Suggestion: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience, e.g. have experience representing respondents as well as complainants?"

Language:  Question 4: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in.

In Person Hearings: DELETE. Question doesn’t make sense.

Default:

Question 1: Seems to ask providers how they do something for a procedure over which they have no control.  ACTION: Take it back to the Sub Team to consider deleting.

Question 2: DELETE. We already have this information from the case review for both within 6 months and after 6 months.

Question 3: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in

Examiner Determination:

Question 3: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in, but include Brian’s reformulation: “Noting URS Rules 13(a) that Examiners may ‘make a Determination …in accordance with …any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.’ Are you aware whether any case that the Examiner has invoked this rule?”

Question 8: Possibly duplicative.  ACTION: Take it back to the Sub Team to consider deleting, or rephrase it.

Question 10: DELETE.  Provider can’t know what the examiner assigns to others in their office.  But could rephrase if they are aware or provide any suggested language or clerical help to examiners.  George will send revised language.

Remedies:

Question 4: This is seeking an opinion; keep it in.

Question 5: DELETE.  Keep it for the WG.

Question 6: Leave it in, but add: “If yes, what action did you take on receiving the notice or to resolve the query?”

Effect of Court Proceeding.

Question 1: Ask David McAuley to send revised language.  Done: “To your knowledge, have there been instances of legal proceedings relating to URS proceedings and, if so, what effect did such instance(s) have?”

Others:

Question 3: Leave it in, and ask, “If so can you provide the type of information or data requested..”  Also, combine with Question 4.

Question 4: See above.  Combine with question 3.

Question 6: Policy question.  Unless others have suggestions for rewriting it, the question will be deleted.

Question 7: DELETE.  Determined to be out of scope.  Or, we could ask if Providers support sanctions against abusers of the process whether Complainant or Respondent.  Also, could ask all Providers if they clearly disclose potential conflicts?  Or could ask FORUM specifically.  Hold off decision on this call and discuss further, although leave it out of the list of questions for now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180425/e9875de0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consolidated Questions to URS Providers - 24 April 2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 201503 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180425/e9875de0/ConsolidatedQuestionstoURSProviders-24April2018-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180425/e9875de0/smime-0001.p7s>