[Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian

[Michael Karanicolas]

Hi,

The proposed rephrasing turns it into a completely different question.

I would request that we keep the question as is and, honestly, I would ask
that we stop re-opening this, as it's been argued to death and we reached a
compromise already, as reflected in the previous wording.

I, too, was at the GNSO session in San Jose, and I remember "reopening
closed discussions" was high on the list of disruptive behaviours that was
mentioned. Let's move on, please.

Best,

Michael

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 –
> we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of
> this question, which states:
>
>
>
> “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a
> diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing
> Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”
>
>
>
> Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
>
>
>
> “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners
> have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having
> a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name
> cases)?”
>
>
>
> His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require
> “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which
> may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not
> *represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised
> question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in
> the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for
> which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a
> subset).
>
>
>
> Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today,
> please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice
> support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today*
> (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the
> Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to
> respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180504/c7025780/attachment-0001.html>