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

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

I support Michael's claim, the wording changes again the meaning, is not
superfluous. We already had a compromised view on this one. If do this, we
will re open a closed debate, there's nothing stopping us from doing that,
but I think we are passed that point. Since it changes the meaning, we can
add a new question with that phrasing keeping both, slightly differently
but difference enough.

Cheers,
Martín

On Fri, May 4, 2018, 4:02 PM Cyntia King <cking at modernip.com> wrote:

> I support Brian’s language tying the question to URS rules.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Cyntia King*
>
> E:  cking at modernip.com
>
> O:  +1 81-ModernIP
>
> C:  +1 818.209.6088
>
> [image: MIP Composite (Email)]
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Michael Karanicolas
> *Sent:* Friday, May 4, 2018 1:51 PM
> *To:* Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording
> Proposed by Brian
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a9d78724/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180504/a9d78724/image002-0001.png>