[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos

Paul Keating paul at law.es
Thu Mar 15 20:18:01 UTC 2018


Example,  PANELIST “A” is employed in Lawfirm “B” whose client is a shareholder of NAF.

Sent from my iPad

> On 15 Mar 2018, at 20:45, Doug Isenberg <Doug at Giga.Law> wrote:
> 
> The UDRP Rules (para. 7) require that a “Panelist shall be impartial and independent and shall have, before accepting appointment, disclosed to the Provider any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubt as to the Panelist's impartiality or independence.”  How does a Panelist’s knowledge (or absence of knowledge) of a Provider’s owners affect whether a Panelist can satisfy this impartiality and independence requirement?
>  
> Doug
>  
>  
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Paul Keating
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 3:18 PM
> To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos
>  
> Michael and Phil
>  
> Aside from conflicts associated with NAF as a provider how can a panelist attest to the absence of conflict if she or he does not know who the owners of NAF (or any other ADT provider aside from WIPO) are ??
>  
> Would it bother anyone if the ADR provider were actually owned by domain registrants or attorneys who inly represent registrants?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Paul Keating, Esq.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180315/fa6757ae/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list