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

[Corwin, Philip]

In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question's wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?:



"What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?"



In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian's desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael's explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases.





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: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM
To: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian



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







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180504/6ceba264/attachment.html>