[gnso-rpm-wg] Practitioners Questions Resolution REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
Paul Keating
Paul at law.es
Thu May 3 15:20:56 UTC 2018
Thank you Jason and I am sorry that this has resulted in a short delay.
As I have noted, if anyone has editing suggestions to the questions please
submit them. My only concern is that the issue is raised by an appropriate
question to practitioners whether or not I write it.
Paul
From: Jason Schaeffer <jason at esqwire.com>
Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:51 PM
To: Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>, Paul Keating
<paul at law.es>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>, "Corwin, Philip
via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Cc: "Kathy Kleiman (kathy at kathykleiman.com)" <kathy at kathykleiman.com>,
"Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu)"
<petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>, "Scott Austin (SAustin at vlplawgroup.com)"
<SAustin at vlplawgroup.com>, "brian.beckham at wipo.int"
<brian.beckham at wipo.int>, "Julie Hedlund (julie.hedlund at icann.org)"
<julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Subject: RE: Practitioners Questions Resolution [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER:
Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
> All,
>
> Please be advised that we are taking this topic offline and back to our
> Practitioners¹ subgroup volunteers, with Paul joining us to find a pathway
> forward.
>
> We worked for many weeks to bring a suitable survey forward to the Sub Team
> and WG. I¹m confident that we will be able to use same collaborative effort
> to improve upon the questions raised that does not raise such extreme
> objections.
>
> We will return to the WG shortly.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Nahitchevansky, Georges
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 10:39 AM
> To: Paul Keating; Michael Karanicolas; Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group
> call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>
> Paul:
>
> What you are doing is simply not productive or constructive. I stand by my
> objections to your questions as drafted and want to make it clear that it is
> rather untoward of you to try to inject questions after the fact and well
> after many hours were spent by many people to obtain a consensus on a group of
> questions and to then cast stones at folks for objecting to your questions.
> Perhaps this is a litigation strategy that you typically use, but this is not
> the way we should be proceeding. We obviously disagree on this point, so
> further missives on our positions are simply pointless. We should take this
> off line and spare the working group the barrage of emails. I suggest we
> proceed as Jason has suggested and set up a time with the practitioner
> subgroup to get this resolved so that a survey can be sent out to move things
> along. Just let Jason know some times that might work and I and others will
> let him know as well.
>
> Georges
>
> From: Paul Keating [mailto:Paul at law.es]
> Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 10:21 AM
> To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>; Michael Karanicolas
> <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>; Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg
> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group
> call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>
>
> You continue to respond by adding still further ³objections². You never seem
> to be wiling to deal with the ones you have made and I have countered. I can
> only presume that you have consented on the old objections and are now
> focusing on those set out below.
>
>
>
> As to focus, the questions are directed entirely at the issue of impartiality.
> We have an obligation to investigate and the questions only seek to understand
> the extent to which panelists check for conflicts. Conflicts checks are SOP
> for any practicing attorney and are simple to conduct. It would take all of 2
> seconds to respond ³yes/no² and if yes simply write a short sentence on the
> nature of the process (which is not a trade secret).
>
>
>
> As for turning people off from responding, I cannot imagine it doing so given
> the simplicity of the questions. There are a limited number of practitioners
> who would be receiving these surveys and they are all identified in the
> relevant UDRP/URS decisions that are publicly available.
>
>
>
> Relying on the Providers does not investigate the extent to which impartiality
> and the absence of conflicts exist. That is like asking a judge if any of the
> attorneys had a conflict and the judge informing you ³well I asked them and
> they said no²Š
>
>
>
> I will not reply further to your emails since they just seem to be an attempt
> to obstruct rather than constructively engage to address the issue.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> From: Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 3:04 PM
> To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>,
> "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group
> call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>
>
>>
>> Paul:
>>
>> You obviously misunderstand the whole point that is being made. We have
>> questions that are ready to go and you and couple of others suddenly pop up
>> with last minute additions that have built in biases. The point that is
>> being made is really quite simple. The issue is whether the URS panelists
>> appointed are impartial. That is what the inquiry should be focused on. My
>> comments are meant to show that anyone could come up with loaded questions
>> and I provided a couple of examples that you might be able to understand. As
>> I said, these types of questions are not productive and will likely turn
>> people off to the survey. So in my view these type of questions should be
>> avoided and should not be included in the practitioner or provider surveys.
>> Questions regarding impartiality and how providers assure such should be in
>> the provider section and has been discussed by folks already.
>>
>>
>>
>> rom: Paul Keating [mailto:Paul at law.es]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 8:45 AM
>> To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>; Michael Karanicolas
>> <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>; Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg
>> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group
>> call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>>
>>
>> Your true colors are showing. You are simply repeating a mantra that is
>> based upon subjectively flawed and illogical presumptions. I believe you
>> have an ulterior motive of simply delaying things.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have some suggested questions please present them. Otherwise I will
>> simply ignore your comments.
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky
>> <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com <mailto:ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> >
>> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:23 AM
>> To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com
>> <mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com> >, "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg"
>> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group
>> call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes it is incredible that some want to include loaded and biased questions
>>> that are full of assumptions. In that vein, should we ask practitioners if
>>> they have ever lied in the papers they submitted in a matter and what
>>> specific steps they take to make sure that what they say is truthful. How
>>> about a question to practitioners about whether they have ever orchestrated
>>> measures beyond an appeal to deprive a successful claimant from being able
>>> to secure a domain name won in a proceeding. The point is that there are
>>> many loaded questions full of assumptions that can be asked to create issues
>>> to further an agenda. a better way of approaching the issue of impartiality
>>> without throwing out questions that assume a wrong exists is to simply focus
>>> on the concept of impartiality per the Rules as opposed to crafting and
>>> revising questions that have underlying assumptions not grounded in the
>>> rules. What would have been great is if the folks that posit these 11th hour
>>> questions had bothered to join the subgroups who worked very hard to get a
>>> set of questions that would be answered. Sweeping in at the 11th hour with
>>> these loaded questions, and when there is limited opportunity to discuss, is
>>> not productive. If it was that important of an issue you would think that
>>> these folks would have joined the groups and raised these issues. They
>>> didn't so I really ask why the loaded questions at this point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Michael Karanicolas
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 4:57 PM
>>> To: Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group
>>> call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>>>
>>>
>>> Incredible. This looks like the exact same kabuki we just went through on
>>> the providers doc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Once again, it's the same tactic of trying to equate a basic and general
>>> question with a personal attack against individual panelists/examiners.
>>> Somehow, I doubt that the recipients of this survey will faint with outrage
>>> at the temerity of being asked about their conflict of interest procedures.
>>> The question does not presume that they are acting in an improper manner -
>>> it asks how they're acting. If they have proper conflict procedures in
>>> place, I can't believe they would be shy about saying as much.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also see the same arguments that the responses will be meaningless or
>>> frivolous (which is funny, considering how people are fighting tooth and
>>> nail to exclude the line of inquiry), and the same protests against imagined
>>> policy debates that might flow from the information.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And, buried amidst the hyperbole, are a few substantive claims addressing
>>> the wording of these questions. So why don't we all save a bit of time and
>>> focus on how the questions can be improved to be better targeted and
>>> accurate? I've made a couple of suggested edits, based on Greg's objections.
>>> It would be great to try and build forward with actual, constructive
>>> suggestions on wording that people can live with.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or we can keep going in circles...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
>>> <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Paul:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your questions are loaded questions that have a bias that panelists are not
>>>> properly vetting conflicts. As a California attorney you know fully well
>>>> that your questions go well beyond the norm. When was the last time you
>>>> were asked to detail your conflict procedures -- apart from when there is
>>>> an actual challenge by a party claiming a conflict of interest. By the
>>>> same token as an attorney representing parties in URS and UDRP proceedings
>>>> you must have done a conflict check. Should we be looking into what all
>>>> parties do in regards to conflict checks. Attorneys are not asked because
>>>> they are are covered by an ethical obligation and unless someone challenges
>>>> on the ground of conflict it is presumed that they did a proper check.
>>>> Similarly, Judges all over the world are presumed to have done a conflict
>>>> check and to recuse themselves if a conflict exists. When is the last you
>>>> asked a judge to explain what they did and what procedures they have in
>>>> place before taking on a case. You presume they conducted a proper check
>>>> and challenge if you believe a conflict of interest. The same should apply
>>>> in the URS context. URS panelists should not be put into a separate
>>>> category that goes beyond what attorneys and judges do. The panelists
>>>> typicallly attest to the fact that they have no conflict. If someone feels
>>>> otherwise, they can always challenge the panelist appointment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The bottom line is that this entire issue you are trying to inject here is
>>>> part and parcel of some notion that panelists are not acting in an
>>>> impartial manner ias required by the URS rules. The questions of such
>>>> whether panelists are acting impartially should be directed to the
>>>> providers, who can answer more appropriately on this issue and what they
>>>> require of panelists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One other basic problem with your questions, is that many answers will be
>>>> meaningless as they will simply be yes we have appropriate procedures in
>>>> place. You may get a handful of more detailed responses, but then we will
>>>> be arguing for months on end about whether procedures are sufficient or not
>>>> etc. We are not here to rewrite the procedures firms take to run conflict
>>>> checks. Again, the issue is about having impartial panelists and what
>>>> steps are taken to make sure that is the case. As in my judge example
>>>> above, if you were going to go down this path of inquiry you would ask a
>>>> judicial commission to advise on what they do to have impartial judges.
>>>> That is the more relevant and productive inquiry. So again I stress that
>>>> these questions should be removed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, I am glad you agree that there should be ramifications for
>>>> attorneys or others acting for parties for filing false statements,
>>>> supporting parties that hide behind bogus contact information, or fail to
>>>> disclose their own interests in a matter. Maybe we should ask practitioners
>>>> if they feel their should be meaningful sanctions for such behavior and the
>>>> type of sanctions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:Paul at law.es <mailto:Paul at law.es>
>>>> Sent: May 2, 2018 10:39 AM
>>>> To:ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com <mailto:ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> ;
>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> ;
>>>> julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>>> Cc:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group
>>>> call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but I do not see what you see.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The questions are neutral questions asking for a fact-based reply. They do
>>>> not presume anything. This is clear from reading the qualifying questions
>>>> at issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding some panelists not being attorneys, I have several responses.
>>>> Primarily, given that the UDRP/URS is founded in legal principles, I
>>>> question the use of those without legal training. Further, conflicts
>>>> checking is not limited to attorneys.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding your suggestion that attorneys confirm who they are representing
>>>> when domains use false WHOIS data or privacy, rest assured. There are
>>>> plenty of rules and regulations that require an attorney to verify the
>>>> identity of clients the least of which are the regulations concerning
>>>> money laundering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the fact-checking, I am fine with your suggestion - as long as it
>>>> applies to both complainants and to respondents. Personally, I am troubled
>>>> by the fact that representatives can even provide a certification when they
>>>> themselves have no personal knowledge. I presume that allowing such a
>>>> process in the UDRP/URS space grew out of the trademark practice (where
>>>> providing such certifications to the registration authorities is a common
>>>> practice). However, if you want to change it that is fine with me as
>>>> long as it applies to both sides.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As to the proposal to limit inquiry to those clearly provided under the
>>>> rules, that is not consistent with our marching orders. In fact if we took
>>>> that approach to everything we would be left without much to investigate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To conclude, I would submit that it is really your comments that are the
>>>> loaded ones and intended to prevent an inquiry into a legitimate issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Georges
>>>> Nahitchevansky <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com
>>>> <mailto:ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> >
>>>> Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM
>>>> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> >, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>>> >
>>>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> "
>>>> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group
>>>> call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear All:
>>>>>
>>>>> Below are the questions being referred to. I likewise object to these
>>>>> questions which have an underlying assumption that Panelists are somehow
>>>>> biased and don¹t screen conflicts properly. It also assumes that the
>>>>> panelists are all attorneys at law firms and the law firms do not have
>>>>> proper screening mechanisms for conflicts. Simply put, most of these
>>>>> questions are loaded questions that are meant to further a particular
>>>>> agenda. If we are going to go down the route of these type of loaded
>>>>> questions, should we also be asking about attorneys, for example, who
>>>>> represent parties that registered names with bogus contact information
>>>>> whether they conducted a thorough check so that they can certify that they
>>>>> truthfully identified the party they are representing and how they
>>>>> conducted that check (e.g., what mechanisms are in place and all steps
>>>>> taken). After all the ethical rules make clear that attorneys are bound
>>>>> by requirements that attorneys be truthful. In that vein, should we also
>>>>> ask whether the attorneys representing parties have been truthful and
>>>>> checked the facts that they are stating in their papers and what steps
>>>>> they take to certify and insure this. I can think of several examples I
>>>>> personally know of where an attorney simply lied in the submissions.
>>>>> Should this now be an entire line of inquiry. Should we ask whether Rule
>>>>> 11 type sanctions be available in URS cases where an attorney representing
>>>>> a party is found to represent a party with fake contact information or has
>>>>> lied in the papers. I can think of many more loaded lines of inquiries if
>>>>> that what some want to do, but ultimately I don¹t think these are going to
>>>>> be productive in moving the ball forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> In light of the questions that were suggested on the provider side of
>>>>> things, I think the only issue to raise is whether Panelists are impartial
>>>>> per the requirements of the rules and what providers do to make sure that
>>>>> is the case and nothing more, . These questions should not be here and
>>>>> should be deleted in their entirety
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Do you serve as a URS panelist?
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Yes
>>>>> B. No
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. If yes, do you undertake a law firm-wide conflicts check to verify that
>>>>> neither you nor your law firm has any actual or potentially adverse
>>>>> conflict of interest to the complainant and/or respondent?
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Yes
>>>>> B. No
>>>>>
>>>>> If yes, please briefly describe the methods used to verify the absence of
>>>>> conflicts:___________________________________________________¹
>>>>>
>>>>> If yes, do you retain records of your search?
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Yes
>>>>> B. No
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. Have you ever communicated with a third party regarding an ongoing URS
>>>>> dispute in which you were a panelist?
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Yes
>>>>> B. No
>>>>>
>>>>> If yes, please briefly explain the nature of such
>>>>> communications:_________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 1:05 AM
>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
>>>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group
>>>>> call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have significant objections to the questions to Examiners that were
>>>>> tacked on to the end of the Practitioners questionnaire at the 11th hour.
>>>>> Apologies for not focusing on this before now. I don't believe these have
>>>>> really been properly reviewed or discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe these questions are inappropriate in a poll of practitioners, as
>>>>> these are questions directed to "panelists." (The proper term is
>>>>> Examiner....) It feels like a "bait and switch" tactic. If we are going
>>>>> to survey Examiners, let's survey Examiners -- not ambush practitioners.
>>>>> On that basis alone, we should eliminate these questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am also troubled by the questions themselves. Singling out these
>>>>> questions, out of all that we might ask Examiners, seems vaguely
>>>>> accusatory.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The basis for these questions is questionable. I've reviewed the URS
>>>>> Procedures and Rules, and none of these questions comes out of a Procedure
>>>>> or Rule. The Examiners are supposed to declare conflicts of interest, but
>>>>> there is no instruction on how to implement that. As such, there is no
>>>>> requirement that an Examiner undertake any type of conflicts check much
>>>>> less something as specific as "a law firm-wide conflicts check to verify
>>>>> that neither you nor your law firm has any actual or potentially adverse
>>>>> conflict of interest to the complainant and/or respondent." Asking the
>>>>> question implies that this is an imperative when it is not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On top of that, this verbiage does not accurately describe a conflict
>>>>> check. What is a "potentially adverse conflict of interest"? Why is it
>>>>> only asking about adverse conflicts? I note that the Forum does have a
>>>>> Supplementary Rule that "A Examiner will be disqualified if circumstances
>>>>> exist that create a conflict of interest or cause the Examiner to be
>>>>> unfair and biased, including but not limited to ... The Examiner has
>>>>> served as an attorney to any party or the Examiner has been associated
>>>>> with an attorney who has represented a party during that association."
>>>>> This does not ask the Examiner to run a conflict check, but notably, the
>>>>> issue it raises is the exact opposite of the issue implied in these
>>>>> proposed questions -- the Forum is highlighting representing a party, not
>>>>> being adverse (much less "potentially adverse) to a party.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I'm not saying it's a bad idea for an Examiner to run a (properly
>>>>> defined) conflict check, but the very fact that we are debating Examiner
>>>>> actions and requirements in a practitioners poll should tell us we're in
>>>>> the wrong place.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For that reason, I will not discuss the problems in the follow-up
>>>>> questions on conflict checks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The final question is even worse. ("Have you ever communicated with a
>>>>> third party regarding an ongoing URS dispute in which you were a
>>>>> panelist?') As far as I know, this is not prohibited behavior, especially
>>>>> not this broadly described. It seems designed to make people feel like
>>>>> they might have done something wrong. (If this is expressly prohibited by
>>>>> the Rules or Procedures, then perhaps we could fashion a question out of
>>>>> that Rule/Procedure if we were putting together a poll for Examiners.) Is
>>>>> it improper to "communicate" with your spouse about a URS case? With one
>>>>> of your law partners? With a fellow Examiner?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Long story short, these questions should be deleted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear RPM PDP WG members,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group
>>>>>> call Wednesday, 02 May 2018, scheduled for 1700 UTC. Times are proposed
>>>>>> as estimates and may be adjusted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proposed Agenda:
>>>>>> 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest (1 minute)
>>>>>> 2. Final Status of Questions for Practitioners and Providers (9 minutes)
>>>>>> 3. Report from the Documents Sub Team (20 minutes)
>>>>>> 4. Discussion on URS Phase II proposal (59 minutes) See John McElwaine¹s
>>>>>> original email at:
>>>>>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002857.html and a
>>>>>> Google Sheet with the proposal as tab one, and the responses as tab two
>>>>>> at:
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1apbVrFayn_vbPfhKDpjYs66iBWjvwhWFG
>>>>>> ZbuGpQnOgI/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>> 5. Notice of agenda for 09 May meeting (1 minute)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Confidentiality Notice:
>>>>> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
>>>>> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
>>>>> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
>>>>> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
>>>>> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney
>>>>> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
>>>>> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
>>>>> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us
>>>>> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:4048156500> , and
>>>>> destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
>>>>> saving in any manner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal
>>>>> tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is
>>>>> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
>>>>> (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
>>>>> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
>>>>> addressed herein.
>>>>> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180503/53210291/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list