<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)">
<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;}
/* 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:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
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;}
span.xapple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:x_apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle20
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:281574886;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1135929138 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:589700385;
mso-list-template-ids:2074790128;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hi everyone,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">>>></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight: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;mso-highlight:yellow">examiners
only copied and pasted in ADR Forum. All ADNDRC and MFSD cases had at least some explanation provided.</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">--community outrage at exclusive use of tick boxes so,<o:p></o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></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:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><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)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Would enforcing more “reasoning” solve the problem?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Kristine<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>