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

Thu Apr 12 16:02:03 UTC 2018

Thanks for your email, Michael, and for the revised language of your question.

As you’ve listened to the call recording  you know that it got about ten minutes of discussion and when it became clear that agreement was elusive I made the decision to defer it for full WG discussion so the sub-team could get on with reviewing the redrafts of other Provider questions. I hope you can join our April 18th call and present your views then.

Very best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way
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]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 10:36 AM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Proposed Agenda - Providers Sub Team Call Wed 11 April

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<mailto: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<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<mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
   Cc: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto: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]
   Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 11:35 AM
   To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>>
   Cc: justine.chew at gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com>]
      Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 6:12 AM
      To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>>
      Cc: ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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 (PDF version is attached).

         2.     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 (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<mailto: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<mailto: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/e89ac326/attachment-0001.html>