<html><body><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua; color:#000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Hey Jeff</div><div><br></div><div>A point I wanted to raise in order to avoid confusion in our conversation is around the term "panelist." </div><div><br></div><div>At the end of our call we were discussing panelists in reference to Objections, however the term panelist was also used in reference to the evaluators of Community Priority Evaluations (there were 2 panelists in each CPE). Was the reference to panelists at the end of our call today only referring to Objections, or the broader use of the term panelist which also includes CPE evaluators?</div><div><br></div><div>As Kathy pointed out, there was opportunity to raise conflict of interest concerns around panelists for Objections because they provided a CV when first assigned to an Objection (at least for Community Objections that I am aware of), however there was never an opportunity to raise conflict of interest concerns around CPE panelists because ICANN choose to make CPEs completely non-transparent, never revealing the identity of the panelists.</div><div><br></div><div>Is this something that can be clarified before the next call.</div><div>Thanks</div><div>Jamie</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent<br>
Procedures PDP WG - 07 October 2019<br>
From: Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br>
Date: Mon, October 07, 2019 12:38 pm<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
<style>
#wmQuoteWrapper /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"MS Gothic"; panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:"\@MS Gothic"; panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:link, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#0563C1; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:visited, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper p.MsoPlainText, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoPlainText, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoPlainText {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
#wmQuoteWrapper p.MsoListParagraph, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoListParagraph, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoListParagraph {mso-style-priority:34; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
#wmQuoteWrapper p.msonormal0, #wmQuoteWrapper li.msonormal0, #wmQuoteWrapper div.msonormal0 {mso-style-name:msonormal; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.PlainTextChar {mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text"; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle21 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle22 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle23 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle24 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle25 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle26 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle27 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle28 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle29 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle30 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle31 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle32 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle33 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle34 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle35 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle36 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle37 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle38 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle39 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle40 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.apple-converted-space {mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle42 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle43 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle44 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle45 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle46 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle47 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle48 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle49 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle50 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle51 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle52 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle53 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle54 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle55 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle56 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle57 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle58 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}
#wmQuoteWrapper .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#wmQuoteWrapper div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}
</style> <div class="WordSection1"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">Dear Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"> <o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">Please see below the notes from the meeting on 07 October 2019. <b><i>These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat,</i></b> which will be posted at: <a target="_blank" href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP"> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-10-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</a>. <o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"> <o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">Julie<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"> <o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b>Notes and Action Items:</b><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b> </b><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b>Actions:</b><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">Accountability Mechanisms -- Evaluation Procedures:<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><u>Background Screening:</u><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">ACTION ITEM 1: Add a row in the chart where the applicant can appeal and for contention sets and exact match, for WG comment.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><u>CPE:</u><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">ACTION ITEM 2: Someone has to pay the brunt of the cost -- who paid last time for .gay? Was that the service provider? Ask ICANN Org.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">ACTION ITEM 3: Add Applicant Support Program as new line 14.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b>Notes:</b><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"> <o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">2. Review of summary documents:<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"> <o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">a. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: <a target="_blank" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-2D3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-2DKNrPs_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=fzAGthS59M6Ja4eWRH-tXjhHXW0h74Ii50a2U7XH5Ow&s=jpXSa64TPR6HkgQjBvjd6X3sp9CKdveWxSSM1pMRqrk&e="> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-KNrPs/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]</a>, page 19 -- Who will be the arbiter of such an appeal?<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">See also: concepts related to the Limited New gTLD Appeals Processes:<a target="_blank" href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit#gid=0">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit#gid=0</a><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- This is an aid to help everyone. It is not a final document. WG members can make comments during the call and afterwards.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><i>Evaluation Procedures:</i><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Add line 13 -- CPE<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><u>Background Screening:</u><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Should there be a panel of experts? For string similarity they were farmed out to do the background screen.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- In this case we don’t know if there could be some kind of standing panel.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Not sure how prescriptive the WG should be. But the Individual Evaluator who made the decision probably shouldn’t be the one that reviews the appeal.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- For background screening, Applicant for identical string should also have a right to appeal. There was no mechanism for this in the last round and ICANN ignored objections when someone passed who should not have passed under the clear language of the AGB. If contention sets are done before screening then anyone in a contention set should have the right to appeal.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Doesn’t that open every single applicant up to an additional layer of delay by contestants?<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Does it mean that an applicant has to pay for bad work of the screeners of the first wave?<span style="font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- <span style="font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span>Evaluators should be INDIVIDUALS with recognized personal expertise.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- If it is loser pays that addresses concerns about frivolous appeals.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Real life example: CPE that had to be done a second time for .gay. In that case .gay didn’t pay, not sure who did.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- How would a member of the public have access to the private portions of the application?<span style="font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span>(How would a private party challenge that application?)<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Not all background information is private<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- We’re talking about background screening. It seems like clear parameters (felony, x number of UDRP losses, etc) should be established so it is not subjective.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Appeal would be on one of the publicly known data points.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- This is a concern for .brands, but not just .brands.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">ACTION: Add a row in the chart where the applicant can appeal and for contention sets and exact match.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><u>CPE:</u><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Someone has to pay the brunt of the cost -- who paid last time for .gay? Was that the service provider? Ask ICANN Org.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">ACTION: Add Applicant Support Program as new line 14.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><i>Objections:</i><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><u>String Confusion Objection</u>:<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Question: What’s the difference between the appeals that are allowed for string similarity? Answer: The string similarity evaluation as the way it was in 2012 was a strictly visual evaluation. That was a pass/fail. If the application failed the evaluation then it was thrown out (if similar to another string). If similar to another application then it was thrown into a contention set. The string confusion is a broader analysis, looking at other factors other than just visual. It’s between the applicant and an existing TLD objector or another applicant objector. It’s an appellate process if the existing objector believes that the evaluator got it wrong. In 2012 if it was decided that a string was in a contention set there was not way for an applicant to appeal being put in a contention set as there were no grounds for objection.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- When .unicorn and .unicom where put in the same contention set there was no appeal for that or objection.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- In the case shown in the matrix, .unicorn or .unicom could appeal.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Doesn't this mean that contention sets need to be done very early so that any contention set folks can use the string similarity objectioner string non-similarity objection? Yes.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><u>Legal Rights Objection</u>:<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Questions: 1) Weren’t we trying to come up with narrowly tailored appeals? 2) how much consideration has been given to the 15 days? Answer: For this charter whatever grounds we decide on for Legal Rights Objections are used, and we are just talking about appeals. We haven’t decided if there should a de novo review or where something is clearly erroneous where the panel made a mistake. Still need to decide the burden of proof/standard. Also need to decide what the timeline must be, 15 days is just an example/placeholder. Could a be notice of appeal in 10 days and a brief within 20 days.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><u>Limited Public Interest Objection</u>:<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Included ALAC because their fees are covered by ICANN.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- On the last call we talked about options for applicants. On the last call some people did not agree that the Independent Objector should have a right to an appeal due to costs. Did the Work Track discussing this issue provide any guidance? Did not think there was enough support to get rid of the IO and didn’t think there would be anyone else who would have the will to file an appeal. WT3 decided to keep the IO but there were no discussions on appeals. <o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Question: Do we want ICANN and Contracted Parties to pay for the IO to be able to appeal a decision? <o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Plus a remote possibility for extension of time under special circumstances.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- If the IO fails is there another objection that can be used? Depends on whether there are mechanisms under the Bylaws, also the GAC could file advice, and any third party that filed the initial objection could appeal, but who pays the costs?<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- IO should have the same rights of appeal.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- If appeals are designed to counter panelist mistakes then it does appear to discriminate against IO objections<span style="font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span>.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Add back in that the IO can appeal under user pays (which would be ICANN).<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- ALAC has no funding ability beyond that supplied by ICANN.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Still there that whether it is a team of IOs -- we said that there should be multiple IOs. We use it in the singular, but it could be a team. If there is a team, then there would not have to be an appeal.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- But what if the IO team made a mistake?<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- In the previous discussion there were no objections to ALAC making an appeal, but there were to ICANN funding it. That makes no sense because there is no ALAC as such without ICANN. ALAC will provide a statement.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Talked about budgets for IOs -- if they have the budget to go to appeal they IOs should be able to take that into account. Budget should be scaled to applications.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><u>Community Objection</u>:<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Should increase the number of days to file -- 15-20 days for notice of appeal, and 45 days to file the appeal.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Plus a remote possibility for extension of time under special circumstances.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><u>Conflict of Interest of Panelist</u>:<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Question: In the Chamber of Commerce you can challenge an arbitrator as soon as you know. If the issue has already been heard we don’t want to encourage anyone to wait? Answer: They should go through the normal conflict process, and then if they disagree with that decision then they could appeal it. It is appealing the decision of the entity who made the decision on conflicts.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- What about 15 days from when the appealing party has knowledge of the conflict. Conflicts aren't always known up front.<span style="font-family:"MS Gothic"">
</span><o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;">-- Interlocatory means before a decision is made in the case.<o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> </div> <hr>_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>