[gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers

Thu Apr 26 16:27:54 UTC 2018

Hello Paul and Phil,

Thanks, Paul, for the suggested questions. As Phil mentioned, these questions may have already been covered by other proposed questions:

Examiner
Q3: (To MFSD) What is your conflict of interest policy for Examiners? How do you make the Examiners aware of their obligation to be impartial and independent?
Q4: (To MFSD) How do your Examiners confirm their impartiality and independence?

These two questions may have covered your questions: 3. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n); 4. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken.

In addition. Forum and ADNDRC have already provided responses to this topic, hence the proposed questions are directed to MFSD:

Forum:

Supplemental Rules: 10. Impartiality and Independence (b) A Examiner will be disqualified if circumstances exist that create a conflict of interest or cause the Examiner to be unfair and biased, including but not limited to the following: (i) The Examiner has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts; (ii) The Examiner has served as an attorney to any party or the Examiner has been associated with an attorney who has represented a party during that association; (iii) The Examiner, individually or as a fiduciary, or the Examiner’s spouse or minor child residing in the Examiner’s household, has a direct financial interest in a matter before the Examiner; (iv) The Examiner or the Examiner’s spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (1) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a Party; or (2) Is acting as a lawyer or representative in the proceeding.

From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com>
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:02 PM
To: "Paul at law.es" <Paul at law.es>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers

Paul:

I can’t speak to the draft questions being prepared to Practitioners as I have had less involvement with that Sub-team, but I believe that the list of draft questions that will be going to Providers next week already covers these areas.

I’m hereby asking staff to  provide us with the accepted or still under discussion questions that focus on the same areas as your suggested questions so that we can compare them and determine whether what we already have is sufficient . These are valid areas of inquiry but we don’t want to be asking providers what is essentially the same question twice.

Philip

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-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:09 AM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers

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.

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
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:32 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers

Hello everyone,

In preparation for tomorrow’s WG call, please be so kind to find attached the redline document of the proposed questions to URS Providers. The document includes comments/suggestions from WG members, and the input/feedback to these comments/suggestions from the Providers Sub Team (received by the deadline at 12:00 UTC on Tuesday, 24 April).

Please be so kind to review this redline document prior to the call tomorrow (Wednesday, 25 April at 12:00 UTC). Thanks again to those who have commented and provided input!

Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 25 April 2018 at 1200 UTC

Dear RPM PDP WG members,

Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 25 April 2018, scheduled for 1200 UTC (note earlier time – calendar invite will be sent via separate email):

Proposed Agenda:

  1.  Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest
  2.  Status of Questions for Practitioners
  3.  Finalize Questions for Providers
  4.  Notice of agenda for 02 May meeting

Best regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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/20180426/a193ae08/attachment-0001.html>