2018-04-04 Sub Team for URS Practitioners

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:
 
Staff: Create a Google document from Georges’ document – DONE, See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aMSNN-kwbJzCXaUIPwBGzJxbQkZ5MmU-JM1xiOVaOVU/edit?usp=sharing (NOTE: Be sure to use suggestion mode to preserve any original text).
Georges:  Put the questions identified from Jason’s and Scott’s edited documents into the Google document (see notes below).
Staff: Set up a call for 14:30 UTC/10:30 EDT on Friday, 06 April for 60 minutes.
 
Notes:
 
Format/Timing:
-- Have quick questions that you can say “yes” or “no” to.
-- General agreement that having a survey format is a good way to work, but should be supplementation.
-- Use Georges’ document as a model and incorporate questions from Jason’s and Scott’s edited versions (see below).
-- George will produce a version by tomorrow, 05 April and a call is scheduled for Friday morning, if needed, to finalize the version.
-- Staff will send the final draft to the Practitioners Sub Team on Friday, 06 April.
 
From Jason’s edited version:
Section 2.2, question 1: Under URS Rules, proof of use can be submitted with the complaint, or an SMD file can be submitted to demonstrate that proof of use was submitted to and accepted by the TMCH.  Do you believe that this is adequate proof of use for a URS case?  If not, what would you recommend and why?
Section 2”.3, question 2: Evidence of Use:  If representing Complainant, do you  use the SMD file from the TMCH, a printout from an active web site, or something else?  Why did you  choose one type of evidence of use over another?
 
From Scott’s edited version:
7. Notice: If you submitted a URS Complaint, what form of service of the notice did you use? a) Paper hard copy mailed via postal service; b) paper hard copy mailed via overnight courier or other expediting service with tracking; c) fax; d) electronic mail; or e) other, namely: _________________________
8. Did the notice provided under the URS through the method checked above reach the respondent with proof of delivery and review by the intended recipient?  
-- Discussion: Problem with 8 it has to do with the process.  More of a provider question.  Trying to get at the procedural issue: “Was there an issue in terms of getting notice of a complaint?  Did you get everything in a timely fashion?”  -- Or could be split into two parts: “Did you have problems providing notice to respondent and did the respondent have problems getting the notice?”  Is part of the problem whether the WHOIS information was accurate with respect to the notice?
 
10. Have you encountered any problems after a successful UDRP decision with the suspension or the extension of the suspension? If so, please describe the problem encountered.  Can you recommend any correction or improvement?
 
1. Based on your experience as a URS practitioner, is the standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for the burden of proof in URS proceedings: a) too high   ----; b) appropriate ____; c) unclear            ; d) in need of the following modification(s) _______________
2. Should there be more guidance provided by definition or context example from hornbook law for practitioners regarding what facts sufficient to meet the "clear and convincing" standard? Should this standard  be modified?  a) yes ______; b) no _____Please explain your response.
3. Should there be an “Overview of Panel Views on Selected URS Questions” similar to WIPO's Overview of Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions to help practitioners better understand the scope and use of existing URS decisions?
-- Discussion: We are asking about clear and convincing evidence then we should reference the boilerplate language that is being used.  Find out the basis of the recurring language – ask a provider or panelist.  Greg can try to dig up the language and send it around.