Page History
...
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items ACTION ITEMS:
NOTES: I. Review of the URS Rules and propose questions 6. Examiner (a)
Discussion: - One possible recommendation from the WG may be asking ICANN to enforce this rule so all Examiners’ qualifications are published. - ADNDRC has a number of offices in Asia with some degree of regional autonomy. Does this distributed system cause the qualifications of certain Examiners not being published?
9. Language of Proceedings
Discussion: - The indication of English fluency does not apply to all Examiners, but this does not mean they are not fluent in English. (Staff note: Some Examiners did indicate in their resumes that they have “good” or “fair” level of English skills, but not “excellent”).
10. Further Statements
11. In-Person Hearings
Discussion: - MFSD confirmed that they have never conducted any in-person hearings (including teleconference, videoconference, web conference, etc.) and only reviewed written submissions.
12. Default (b)
ACTION ITEM: Staff to check how would the website resolve when the Respondent responded to the Complaint within the six-month period after the Default Determination, which rendered the suspension of the website due to infringement/being used in bad faith. (e)
(f)
13. Examiner Determination (a)
(b)
Discussion: - This concerns with the qualitative review of the URS cases. Not all URS Determinations state the names of the attorneys of the Complaints and Respondents. - A potential recommendation from the WG may be that the URS Determination to include additional required data elements (e.g., legal counsel involved, trademark, website content), which are required in UDRP cases, without overburden the Examiners. (c)
(d)
15. Determinations and Publications (a) ACTION ITEM: Staff to check whether URS Determinations have been published by all Providers. (c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Discussion: - Should the WG recommend ICANN to aggregate the Determinations from the separate databases managed by the three Providers and place them in one central database? By doing so, it may be helpful to detect bad faith registrants and detect other patterns.
16. Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination (b)
17. Effect of Court Proceedings (a)
Discussion: - WG should check the data gathered by Berry and see what Examiners have been done in dealing with court proceedings.
18. Abusive Complaints (d)
(e) ACTION ITEM: Staff to check whether the three Providers establish and maintain the electronic abuse case database. (f)
19. Appeal (b)
Discussion: - This may be explained in the Supplemental Rules.
20. Exclusion of Liability
II. Review of MoU Between Providers and ICANN (Example: FORUM) 2(b)(v)
2(b)(viii)
2(b)(x)
2(c)
III. Next Steps & Future Meetings
|