[Gnso-rpm-providers] Proposed Agenda - Providers Sub Team Call Wed 11 April

Thu Apr 12 14:35:32 UTC 2018

Hi all,

Thanks for the update.

I have to say - I find this result a bit surprising. Having participated in
every previous call, I can't think of any other cases where a question from
a subgroup member was handled this way. We have 17 pages of questions -
probably at least a hundred in total - less than five of which came from
me. The approach taken thus far has seemed very inclusive to adding queries
where there was some support. That's why my comments recommending the
addition were so brief - I didn't expect to have to dig in and justify the
question to this degree, since I haven't seen others challenged in this way
for a question which seems to me (and to others, evidently) to be obviously
related to our work. That said - I am of course happy to engage further on
this.

Having listened to the call now - there seems to have been two objections
raised which made this "controversial". First, it was stated that having
represented trademark owners (or defended against trademark claims) does
not necessarily mean an examiner is biased, nor should it disqualify a
person from being an examiner. This I fully agree with, of course, and I
would not suggest otherwise. But beyond questions over a particular
examiner's neutrality, it's relevant to consider whether the system as a
whole has the appearance of bias. A judge having formerly been a prosecutor
is fine. But if every judge in the country was a former prosecutor, it
would surely give rise to concerns
<https://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11306422/supreme-court-prosecutors-career>.
This is why I'm asking - not to try and disqualify any individual - but to
assess potential biases which may be baked into the system as a whole. This
is highly relevant to our task at hand.

Second, it was raised that the question might be "unanswerable". First -
I'll note that there were several questions which we included which may be
challenging to respond to, or where data may be unavailable. Previously, I
recall we dealt with these by saying we could submit them, and if the
providers didn't have responsive data they could indicate as such (that's
why we see questions starting with "are you aware of", "do you have
knowledge of" etc.). That said, Phil raised a good point that many lawyers
will work both sides, and someone else mentioned that domain owners also
owned trademarks and vice versa... Looking back, I think I was a bit
unclear in my original phrasing, so instead let me propose as follows:

*1. Would you say that a substantial majority of your examiners have
professional experience that mainly draws from representing trademark
holders seeking to enforce their rights, or mainly draws from domain
registrants seeking to defend against trademark claims, or would you say
that your examiners include a mix of both, or that most have a history of
representing both sides in these disputes?*

With this revised drafting, and given that I'm apparently not the only one
who sees that this question is relevant and valid, I would request that the
question be included alongside the others, rather than reserved for further
discussion.

Best,

Michael Karanicolas

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
wrote:

> Michael:
>
>
>
> There was some extended discussion of this on the Providers call today – “
> specifically to look into what (if any) proportion of the Examiners have
> experience representing the registrant side, or if they tend to mostly have
> a background representing trademark holders” – we couldn’t reach agreement
> on relevance or specific language, so it’s been reserved for further
> discussion when we review the draft questions at the full WG level.
>
>
>
> Your suggestion to insert “or guidance” into question 2 was accepted and
> it has been updated accordingly.
>
>
>
> Best, Philip
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2018 12:08 PM
> *To:* mkaranicolas at gmail.com
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Proposed Agenda -
> Providers Sub Team Call Wed 11 April
>
>
>
> Thanks Michael. We’ll note your comments if you are not on the call.
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Karanicolas [mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com
> <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2018 11:35 AM
> *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* justine.chew at gmail.com; gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Proposed Agenda -
> Providers Sub Team Call Wed 11 April
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure if I will be able to make the call, but I would appreciate if
> we could dig a little deeper into Q1 under examiners, specifically to look
> into what (if any) proportion of the Examiners have experience representing
> the registrant side, or if they tend to mostly have a background
> representing trademark holders.
>
>
>
> With regard to Q2 under examiners, I would suggest the following change:
>
>
>
> 2. What if any training *or guidance* do you provide for the selected
> Examiners?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <
> gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Justine. Your suggestions will be considered on today’s call.
>
>
>
> Philip
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* Justine Chew [mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2018 6:12 AM
> *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* ariel.liang at icann.org; gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Proposed Agenda -
> Providers Sub Team Call Wed 11 April
>
>
>
> Dear Phil and sub-team colleagues,
>
> Please find attached my edits to your edits of the raw questions for
> consideration at our next/last call.
>
>
> Best
>
> ,
>
> Justine Chew
> -----
>
>
>
> On 11 April 2018 at 10:28, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <
> gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Sub-team members:
>
>
>
> Attached please find my edits of the raw questions generated by our calls,
> in redline and clean versions. These edits have been made with the aim of
> making the questions to Providers more focused and clear. In some instances
> I have identified questions that we may wish to discard.
>
>
>
> Please try to review these edits prior to Wednesday’s call, as it will be
> our last and on April 18th we will share our final draft questions with
> the full WG.
>
>
>
> Also, please try to review the ADNDRC and MFSD Supplemental Rules prior to
> the call to identify any additional questions that any provision may
> suggest.
>
>
>
> Thank you an best regards,
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ariel Liang
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 6:19 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Proposed Agenda - Providers
> Sub Team Call Wed 11 April
>
>
>
> Dear Providers Sub Team,
>
>
>
> Kindly review the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s call (Wednesday, 11 April
> at 17:00-18:30 UTC):
>
>
>
>    1. Finalize all proposed questions for URS Providers
>    2. Next Steps
>
>
>
> Staff is also recirculating the consolidated questions for Providers (two
> documents):
>
>
>
>    1. *Questions Only*: This document provides a clean list of all
>    questions proposed/already asked so far. You may *comment and suggest
>    edits* to the questions via the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/
>    document/d/1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0/edit?usp=
>    sharing
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdBPxXskvX6a1MbZcLFA8bBvg5fji8iuSIt4EnTlrd0/edit?usp=sharing> (PDF
>    version is attached).
>
>
>
>    1. *With Responses & References: *This document lists not only all
>    questions (Column B - same as the ones on the “Questions Only” document),
>    but also includes responses already received from URS Providers, as well as
>    references to Supplemental Rules and staff notes. The document is
>    *view* only. Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_
>    I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg/edit?usp=sharing
>    <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-qe_I4OkQT7IU_rjHMQVa9Ebj8Ik6vay1vr5Yt9ZIg/edit?usp=sharing> (PDF
>    version attached).
>
>
>
> After Phil finishes editing the proposed questions, staff will update the
> two Google Docs and circulate the updated PDF files.
>
>
>
> As a gentle reminder, due to other simultaneous calls that will be using
> WebEx teleconference room (only two available for the GNSO), tomorrow’s
> meeting would be audio only. Kindly refer to the dial in details in the
> email/calendar invite previously sent by the GNSO Secretariat.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ariel
>
>
>
> *Ariel Xinyue Liang*
>
> Policy Analyst | Washington, DC
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180412/d6d9ffc5/attachment-0001.html>