[gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April

Wed Apr 25 14:06:02 UTC 2018

Julie and all,

First, my apologies for not responding yesterday but this was not received
until after business hours in Barcelona.

I propose to add the following questions to BOTH the practitioners AND ADR
questions.  The questions are intended to understand the process of ensuring
against bias and conflicts of interest in the context of URS proceedings.

Practitioners:

1. Do you serve as a URS panelist (Y/n)

2. If yes, do you undertake a law firm-wide conflicts check to verify that
neither you nor your law firm has any actual or potentially adverse conflict
of interest to the complainant and/or respondent?
Yes
No
If yes, please briefly describe the methods used to verify the absence of
conflicts
If yes, do you retain records of your search

3. Have you ever communicated with a third party regarding an ongoing URS
dispute in which you were a panelist?

If yes, please briefly explain the nature of such communications.

To Providers:

1. Do you assign URS disputes to panelists on a random basis (y/n)
2. If no please briefly describe the process undertaken to select panelists
in any given URS dispute
2. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when
selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n)
3. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken

Sincerely,

Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.

Law.es <http://law.es/>

Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)

Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)

Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810

Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450

Skype: Prk-Spain

email:  Paul at law.es

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN
INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.  THE
INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM
IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF
PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE THE
EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.

Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules
governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained
herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be
used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding
any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be
used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting,
marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter
addressed herein.

NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN
ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS
FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT,
WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED
HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE

From:  gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date:  Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:15 PM
To:  "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS
Practitioners - Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April

> Dear all,
>  
> Further to the message below, this is a reminder to send in any comments or
> suggested edits not later than today, Tuesday, 24 April.  Any further
> suggestions will be considered along with those received thus far from Brian
> Beckham and George Kirikos.
>  
> Best Regards,
> Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel
>  
> 
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM
> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Revised Questions to URS Practitioners -
> Please Comment by Tuesday, 24 April
> 
>  
> Dear All, 
>  
> Please see the attached revised document ³URS Practitioner Background
> Experience and Perspective² based on the comments and suggestions received
> during the RPM PDP WG meeting today, 18 April.  Please review the document per
> the following action item highlighted below.  The suggested edits are
> indicated by redline and strikethrough in the attached document.
>  
> 1. Questions for URS Practitioners:
>> 1. Staff will provide to the WG a redlined document with suggested revisions
>> by 18 April (DONE-Attached)
>> 2. WG members are encouraged to provide any further comments/suggestions by
>> COB Friday, 20 April, but not later than Tuesday, 24 April;
>> 3. Staff will provide to the WG a final redlined document before the meeting
>> on Wednesday, 25 April.
>  
> Please note: 
> * When the proposed questions are finalized, staff will proofread and correct
> typos, formatting errors, etc. before the questions are converted into a
> survey; WG members are encouraged to focus your comments/suggestions on the
> substance. 
> * Only the PDF version is provided to ensure the WG is commenting/suggesting
> edits to the content in one master document, so as to avoid any potential
> version confusion caused by Word file(s).
>  
> Thank you for your time and review!
>  
> Best Regards,
> Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel
> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180425/93b9a47a/attachment-0001.html>