[GNSO-RPM-WG] Edits and updates

Zak Muscovitch zak at muscovitch.com
Mon Oct 26 13:14:31 UTC 2020

Dear fellow WG members, I note that URS Final Recommendation #3 was incorporated into the draft Report as per our recent deliberations;

                URS Final Recommendation #3

The Working Group recommends that the URS Rules be amended to incorporate in full Rule #11 of the UDRP Rules regarding “Language of Proceedings”

I also note that URS Final Recommendation #4 appears to now refer to having the URS Notice of Complaint be in the language of the Registration Agreement as opposed to the predominant language of the registrant:

URS Final Recommendation #4

The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 4(b) and URS Procedure para 4.2 be amended to require the Provider to transmit the Notice of Complaint to the Respondent in English and translate it into the language of the Registration Agreement.

On one hand this can be viewed as consistent with Recommendation #3 (above), but on the other hand I am uncertain whether WG’s resolution was to cease translating the actual Notice into the predominant language, or to continue to do so but have the subsequent proceeding be in the language of the registrant agreement.

Maybe this is something worth discussing on our next call if there is sufficient interest amongst the WG members and time to do so.

Zak Muscovitch

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 6:19 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; Corwin Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>; John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Edits and updates

Hi All,
Attached please find my proposed edits to the Background section of our report. We had a little more interaction with the EPDP report than noted -- and went past the summary wave table to the actual EPDP recommendations to determine that there was no conflict between them and our WG recommendations. I've proposed revisions to the background text to show this process with the steps involved. As a WG, we certainly did our due diligence on this important task!

Best and have a good weekend,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20201026/a0a0e7f4/attachment.html>

More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list