<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:297299420;
mso-list-template-ids:-1534413266;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1607040140;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1441271536 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailOriginalBody"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Dear All,</span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the Working Group call held on 18 April 2018 (1700 UTC).</span><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. <i>Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording.</i> The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Best Regards,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Julie</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Action Items:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1'><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Questions for URS Practitioners</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>: <o:p></o:p></span></li><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=a><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions by 18 April; <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April;<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1'><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Questions for Providers</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>:<o:p></o:p></span></li><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=a><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Staff will recirculate the documents for review on 18 April;<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>WG members will provide comments/suggestions by COB Friday, 20 April;<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Staff will produce a redlined document for the Sub Team to review by Monday, 23 April;<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Sub Team will provide input/feedback on the new suggestions/edits by Tuesday, 24 April;<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting on Wednesday, 25 April.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1'><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Report from the Documents Sub Team</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>:<o:p></o:p></span></li><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=a><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Staff will recirculate the report on 18 April;<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>WG members will review and provide comments on the list.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol></ol><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Notes:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1. Sub Team from Practitioners:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Moving forward on the questions for practitioners and providers does not affect the discussion concerning whether to move URS to Phase 1.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Discussion of the final form of the questions will extend to the next call.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Everyone was very satisfied with what the Sub Team put together.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>General Questions</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Question 3: Overall, leaving aside the result of the proceeding, how was your experience with the process of a URS proceeding?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Collect information on which provider you used. Indicate if you are the complainant or the respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- It should also capture which provider was used for that proceeding/appeal, as the experience might differ across providers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- We will track who is responding; staff would be able to determine if it is coming from complainant/rep or respondent/rep.) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Procedural Issues</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Question 4: Are you aware of any issues the Respondent may have had regarding the receipt of the notice of the proceeding? <o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- the complainant wouldn’t necessary know. Maybe "were there any issues" could be written as "any difficulties" <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- That was asked to the providers in the other PDF, but it's more suitable for registrants/URS lawyers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Question 5: When involved as Respondent or its representative in a URS proceeding did you experience any issues with receiving notice of the proceeding?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Instead of “you” change to “respondent”. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- May be important to include a caveat that this wouldn’t include any delay from the respondent delaying in sending to his representative.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Question 6: Have you filed or been involved in an appeal of a URS decision?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Add: “If so why?” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Collect information on which provider you used. Indicate if you are the complainant or the respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- It should also capture which provider was used for that proceeding/appeal, as the experience might differ across providers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- We will track who is responding; staff would be able to determine if it is coming from complainant/rep or respondent/rep.) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Substantive Issues</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Question was not intended to deal with whether the panel has handled it appropriately.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Practical Issues</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Question 1: Do you believe the current mechanisms for proving use in a URS case are adequate?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Include a link to the current mechanisms for proving use.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Question 3: Do you believe the filing fee for a URS is appropriate?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Add a text box: “Please suggest what you think is an appropriate filing fee.” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Question 6: Do you believe the existing time frames for submitting filings in a URS proceeding are appropriate?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Include a link to the existing time frames.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Other</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Question 1: If you chose not to file a URS in a particular matter, what was the reason? Please choose from the following options:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Isn't the question limited to scope to circumstances when the URS is not chosen?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- We could ask, in the “If the URS was available in all gTLDs, would you use it? Why or why not?” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Look into whether that feature of the mechanism – whether there is value to change it from the practitioners’ perspective. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>General Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- That is really an issue if you look at people who have filed UDRP. This is meant to go to URS practitioners. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- It’s a good concept but no way to make a connection except for on a case-by-case basis.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Not appropriate. This survey is for URS practitioners not all practitioners -- e.g. those who only filed UDRPs or court cases.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2. Next Steps:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Practitioners Questions: Hold open changes to the questions until next week’s call.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Documents Sub Team: Has a few questions to refer to the Providers Sub Team that may already have been considered.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>3. Co-Chair:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Brian Beckham has indicated his interested and is preparing a statement of qualifications. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>-- Time pressure with Council because the GNSO Council will need to approve in May. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>