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

[Michael Karanicolas]

Hi,

Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't
think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's
question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include
it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows:

Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have
demonstrable relevant legal background?

Q15: 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.

Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at
the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the
point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if
anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a
Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a
lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the
window, please.

Best,

Michael



On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, 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/20180504/b9abc608/attachment.html>