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

[Justine Chew]

Phil,

Thank you for your re-wording for clarity, I am in support of it.

Justine
-----

On 5 May 2018 at 03:37, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <
gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180505/343ad260/attachment-0001.html>