The call for the RPM Sub Team for URS Providers: To develop and review questions for the URS providers will take place on Wednesday, 18 July 2018 at 12:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

05:00 PDT, 08:00 EDT, 14:00 Paris CEST, 17:00 Karachi PKT, 21:00 Tokyo JST, 22:00 Melbourne AEST

For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yb8shazn

PROPOSED AGENDA

  1. Review agenda
  2. Finish reviewing the divergent responses from URS Providers (slide no.54 onward)
  3. Review questions with similar/consistent responses from Providers in the table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]  
  4. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

RPM_URS_PDP_WG_Session_3_28June2018_v5.pdf

RECORDINGS

Mp3

AC Recording

PARTICIPATION

Attendance & AC Chat

 

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS

  • Sub Team members to review the complete responses from Providers, including the questions that Providers offered similar responses, and bring up issues that deserve further discussions/deliberation in the full Working Group via the mailing list
  • Staff to identify issues for further discussions and circulate the list with the Sub Team
  • Staff to update the spreadsheet with notes captured in today's call (DONE)

NOTES

  • Row 101: Some determinations issued by FORUM Examiners didn't state how the burden of proof is satisfied or the reasons for their determinations, and this needs to be further discussed.
  • Row 103: No issues
  • Row 105: The non-implementation of URS suspension should be further discussed; ICANN needs to make sure registry operators are following the rules/procedures and suspend the domain names.
  • Row 106: Registrars have a role in the extension of the suspension for one additional year, but some of them don't understand their role. Registrar education and their lack of understanding of their role is an issue.
  • Row 107: The WG may need to re-examine the URS technical requirements and understand whether any change needs to be made.
  • Row 111: No issue
  • Row 112: No issue
  • Row 113: No issue
  • Row 128: No issue; the small number of appeals may not be a bad thing
  • Row 129: No issue
  • Row 136: No issue
  • Row 137: ADNDRC may have been out of compliance with technical requirements
  • Row 138: No issue


  • No labels