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

Sat May 5 00:47:30 UTC 2018

Hi,

I understand you have been placed in a difficult position, and I certainly
don't mean to add to the challenges. My impression was that we already had
worked this out - we have language that was agreed - and I don't think we
should be debating it further (though, as I mentioned, I've no objection to
adding Brian's question separately).

>From my perspective, the approved providers questions are good to go.

Best,

Michael

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:

> Thanks for that clarification, Mary.
>
>
>
> C’mon people, let’s get this worked out.
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+703&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+703&entry=gmail&source=g>
> -948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2018 4:11 PM
> *To:* Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>; Corwin, Philip <
> pcorwin at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised
> Wording Proposed by Brian
>
>
>
> Hi Michael and everyone,
>
>
>
> Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should
> point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he
> and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing
> list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was
> to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list
> suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team
> with.
>
>
>
> We hope this clarifies the timing.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mary & Ariel
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51
> *To: *"Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
> *Subject: *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
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+703&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+703&entry=gmail&source=g>
> -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/20180504/6901a8c9/attachment-0001.html>