Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.




Apologies: Brian Beckham, Marie Patullo, Jonathan Agmon, Lori Schulman, Paul Keating



Notes/ Action Items: Notes and Action Items 30 November 2017.pdf

Action Items:

Suggested Approach from the WG members on the call: To identify topics addressed by the Charter questions and capture high-level questions/data points for each topic. Suggested questions are:

1) Has it been used?

2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled?

3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences? 

4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?

5) How many managed to prevail?

Action Items:

  1. Develop a strawman of high-level questions and Charter question topics. (forthcoming)
  2. WG to provide comments/thoughts about the proposed approach.
  3. If the approach is agreed to, WG to analyze the topics addressed by the Charter questions against the high-level questions.


Question 1: Should the ability for defaulting respondents in URS cases to file a reply for an extended period (e.g. up to one year) after the default notice, or even after a default determination is issued (in which case the complaint could be reviewed anew) be changed?

Action Item: Staff to look up where the 1-year period for Question 1 originated.


Question 2: Should the Response Fee applicable to complainants listing 15 or more disputed domain names by the same registrant be eliminated?

Action Item: Staff to look up the origin of the response fee for 15 (and more) domains, and why 15 was chosen as a number.


Revised Table:

Action Item: Staff will post to the wiki space a revised version of the table with excerpts from the notes.  Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording.  The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki.