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

Sat May 5 01:12:53 UTC 2018

Hi All,

I agree w/ Phil’s earlier email noting that regular order should generally be observed.

I can’t help but note that, in this case, we’re sending out a long questionnaire that will inform our future efforts.  I don’t think a single, last-minute question is a terrible hardship.  Certainly not fun on a Friday night, but understandable.

I appreciate the effort everyone has made to get this done, even up to the last minute.

Cyntia King

E:   <mailto:cking at modernip.com> cking at modernip.com

O:  +1 81-ModernIP

C:  +1 818.209.6088

From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 7:41 PM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Cc: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian

Thanks Mary, though I am still a bit mystified as to whether this is common practice. As you note, the issue was raised 8 days ago. Paul and myself both responded, Brian did not, and the discussion moved on until the group found a compromise. If a participant has additional inputs - shouldn't they raise them directly with the group, as opposed to going through staff for revisions?

It's particularly troubling that this was presented as a new revision on a Friday afternoon with barely a couple of hours to respond. We shouldn't have to monitor this list 24 hours a day to ensure that language which has been carefully debated and vetted won't be surreptitiously substituted out on a whim from a participant. This isn't comparable to someone rolling in a couple of hours past the deadline - this is a question of a member (and potentially a future chair...) taking the initiative to undo hours of debate and discussion on the list. 

Anyway - I don't mean to belabour this, as my hope is that this issue is now closed, and that we can move forward with the language we had already approved, but I felt the need to write again because if we approach this from the perspective than any issue which has been debated and decided remains subject to reopening anytime a member writes in, I think it will be very difficult to make any progress.

Best,

Michael

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> > wrote:

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 <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com <mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com> >
Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51
To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >
Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20180504/4d6e83cb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180504/4d6e83cb/image002-0001.png>