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

Fri May 4 20:06:07 UTC 2018

I understand your position, Michael, and hope that Brian and others can accept your suggestion so that we can get these questions out to Providers on schedule. We need to do so to meet our timeline obligations and to get answers back for analysis and discussion prior to and at our meetings at ICANN 62 Panama.

Speaking solely for myself, I must observe that we had a very smooth and amicable process in both sub-teams until this week, when first a series of past-deadline questions for Practitioners were submitted (which now seem on the verge of being worked out), and now this past-deadline rewording of a question for Providers.

Following regular order exists to both thoroughly vet proposed questions and other WG actions in a fair and predictable manner, as well as to avoid precisely this type of situation. It is up to the WG, but I believe that in the future we should strictly enforce agreed upon deadlines, even if that means automatic rejection of what may be well-intentioned and even meritorious proposals. In other words, "You snooze, you lose." 

I invite discussion of this suggestion by WG members - do you want the co-chairs to be strict or flexible on deadline enforcement? If we accept late submissions that you like then we have no authority to reject those you don't, and we don't want to be judge and jury on any resulting disputes.  

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: Michael Karanicolas [mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 3:51 PM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
Cc: ariel.liang at icann.org; gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian

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