<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.xxmsonormal, li.xxmsonormal, div.xxmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_xmsonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.xmsochpdefault, li.xmsochpdefault, div.xmsochpdefault
{mso-style-name:x_msochpdefault;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.xemailstyle20
{mso-style-name:x_emailstyle20;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hi Rebecca,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I no longer work for Forum, so I’m unfamiliar with their current pricing in relation to other providers, but at the time, that was the rationale for why the bidding
providers should be able to charge less.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><br>
Again, not opining substantively, just raising some historical context.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Kristine<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Tushnet, Rebecca [mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 04, 2018 2:06 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>; BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks for this, Kristine. As to your third question, does ADR Forum charge less than the other providers for providing less reasoning? Relatedly, I didn't understand my suggestion to be asking
for "UDRP level work," especially given the mandate of the URS to do easy cases. It seems to me that if the case is not easy, then the examiner can say that the record doesn't allow resolution of the URS elements in the complainant's favor.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="98%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Dorrain, Kristine <<a href="mailto:dorraink@amazon.com">dorraink@amazon.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 4, 2018 4:47:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Tushnet, Rebecca; BECKHAM, Brian; <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 30 May 2018 at 1200 UTC</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hi everyone,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I apologize for missing the call. I wanted to follow up on this statement, which I’ve trimmed from Prof. Tushnet’s email, to reduce the message length.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;background:yellow">>>></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow"> My own takeaway from the research is that the URS is generally functioning well for easy
cases, but there is a serious issue of lack of reasoning and thus lack of information in a significant subset of cases. Following up on a question asked last time, Alex separated the cases by provider and found that </span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:#212121;background:yellow">examiners
only copied and pasted in ADR Forum. All ADNDRC and MFSD cases had at least some explanation provided.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I hope that our STI/IRT members and maybe even staff, can pull more from their collective brains on this, but I here is my recollection of how the reasoning question went down
(full disclosure: I was with Forum at the time and substantially wrote their RFI to be a URS provider).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">--STI created a “tapestry” of RPMs and created a “light/fast” URS that was for such straight-forward cases that the complaint and decision should just be tick-boxes.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">--community outrage at exclusive use of tick boxes so,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">--IRT said it must NOT be tick box-only. The Examiner must have a chance to make remarks. There was no community requirement that there be reasoning, merely the option.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">--Indeed, in light of the anticipated low fees, it was anticipated that the Examiners would do a quick review and if the complainant didn’t quickly win on its face, they should
have the option to go back and file a UDRP for a deeper look. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I request correction if I’m wrong, but, if I’m right, then we need to back up and determine:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">What’s the harm in the level of reasoning in URS decisions currently (recall this is always our threshold question – what is broken)?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Would enforcing more “reasoning” solve the problem?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Is the WG prepared to re-assess the fees charged to parties if a more UDRP-level of work will be required?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I have no opinion on the answers to the questions, but just wanted to remind everyone that a pretty bright, diverse group actually spent a lot of time debating tick-box vs reasoning
and ended up deciding reasoning should be optional, so we shouldn’t *<b>assume</b>* that “the more reasoning, the better.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Kristine</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>