<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Brian,</div><div><br></div><div>I do not honestly see any inconsistency between the question and the standards you noted in your email. If you do can you perhaps explain your position further?</div><div><br></div><div>I have submitted substantially similar questions which include an inquiry as to how the panelists are actually selected but the ADR provider. I know this is close to home for you given your position with WIPO. However, I ask that you try to put that aside so that the inquiries can be made.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <<a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:22 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Michael Karanicolas <<a href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com">mkaranicolas@gmail.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Michael,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The Rules, and URS, respectively provide that examiners should be (a) “impartial and independent” and (b) “should have demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in
trademark law”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Perhaps it would make more sense to reframe your question by reference to those previously-agreed provisions?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Brian
<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: gnso-rpm-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas<br>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:58 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers</p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">Please find a revised question regarding examiners attached:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">In selecting examiners, do you have policies in place that are aimed at developing a roster which includes a balance of lawyers who focus on trademark enforcement and those who represent respondents, and would you say these policies
have been effective in generating a balance of examiners who represent both sides?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">Michael Karanicolas<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:44 PM, George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">icann@leap.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Hi folks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> During today's call, I was asked to propose new wording for some of
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> the questions. Using the page numbering of the April 24th redline
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> version as the starting point:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> 1. page 6, Q11:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Current Version: "Do you believe the deadline for filing Responses is
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> long enough? Please provide your rationale. If not, what time period
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> would you support, keeping in mind that the URS is supposed to operate
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> with rapidity?"<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Proposed Language: "Have you received any feedback from respondents
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> that the time period to respond to a URS complaint is too low?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> [as an aside, conceivably, if all we're looking for is facts/data from
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> the provider, rather than their opinion on policy changes, part of
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> this might already be captured implicitly through Q3 on page 5;
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> although, some respondents might have suffered through a short
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> deadline, without asking for an extension]<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> 2. Page 9, Q12(c):<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Current Version: "What is the procedure for assigning examiners? (i.e.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> how large is the pool of examiners, is it randomly assigned; some
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> studies suggest a large number of cases are handled by a relatively
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> small number of potential examiners)"<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Proposed Language:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> "12(c)(i) How large is the pool of URS examiners?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> 12(c)(ii) Are the examiners randomly assigned, rotated, or assigned
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> using some other procedure (please specify)?"<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> [aside: 12(c)(ii) seems to have already been responded to partially,
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> based on the earlier wording of the question]<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> 3. Page 13, Q10:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Current Version: "Does the Provider have clerks or other staff that
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> 'ghost-write' decisions for Examiners, before the Examiner has made a
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Determination independently, that the Examiner can simply sign their
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> name to if they agree with it?"<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Proposed Language: [trying to be as diplomatic as I can -- my company
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> does own Diplomacy.com! :-) ] "To what extent does the Provider
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> supply Examiners with information, analysis or research concerning a
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Complaint or Response that is not to be found within the Complaint or
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Response itself? Does the Provider provide drafts or exemplars to the
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Examiners?"<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> [aside: the "drafts" and "exemplars" language came from Rebecca's
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> suggestion in the WebEx chat today; I hope I used it appropriately,
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> although I'm welcome to friendly amendments; you'll recall that the
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> "ghost-writing" term came from Paul Keating's comment to the article<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> at:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/naf_caught_revising_past_udrp_decisions/"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.circleid.com/posts/naf_caught_revising_past_udrp_decisions/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> "In the case of NAF they are (with reason) suspected of having inside
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> clerks ghost-write opinions for delivery to the panelists." (excerpt;
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> full quote has been posted before on this list)<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> As I noted in the Webex chatroom and orally today, there had been
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> instances in the past where the same gibberish/nonsense appeared
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> verbatim across multiple decisions (in the UDRP) from different
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> panelists<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100423_naf_copying_pasting_nonsense_in"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100423_naf_copying_pasting_nonsense_in</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> to_udrp_decisions/<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> That article had a comment from Brett Lewis that stated (I'll quote it
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> in it's entirety, to not take things out of context):<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> "NAF decisions are drafted by in-house staffers who present the drafts
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> to Panelists. If the Panelists agree with the staffer's decision,
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> they can simply adopt the decision as their own. If the Panelists
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> disagree, the Panelists have to draft a new decision. There is
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> certainly an incentive to go along with the staff draft, but let's
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> give panelists a little more credit. Most panelists that is.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Staffers undoubtedly cut and paste, as all lawyers do — especially
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> when working for so little money. The real issue is whether the
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> cutting and pasting is a sign of something more sinister — bias.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Justice by factory because the trademark holder is always right.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> It seems that a number of the cut and paste jobs here actually went in
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> favor of the Respondents. I'd need to see more before I could say
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> this is bias and not just sloppiness. Also, what was being cut and
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> pasted makes a big difference. The UDRP system is far from perfect,
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> and certain panelists are doing more of a hatchet job than they should
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> be, but when they are getting paid a nominal amount to review papers
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> and draft a decision, some degree of recycling is likely to happen.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Still, it wouldn't kill NAF to review the decisions before they're
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> published. "<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Later on, in response to my question whether WIPO does the same, he
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> wrote (with the title of "Sausage Factory"):<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> "I don't believe that WIPO does it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> I'm not sure exactly how NAF does it, but they used to have staff
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> members draft the decisions first, then submit them to the Panelists.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> The Panelists could adopt, modify, or reject the draft decisions. I'm
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> not sure if they do that when there's a three-member Panel, since
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> contested matters are generally more complex and more difficult to
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> decide."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> and later:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> "Judges often rely on law clerks to assist them to draft decisions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> The idea may not be all that different. The only issue would be
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> whether panelists are abdicating their responsibility to be impartial
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> fact finders in lieu of just signing onto a draft decision. I don't
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> believe that most panelists would do that, but for some, it might
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> happen — especially if they have a particular view of respondents that
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> fits the draft."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> So, I hope the above helps members of this PDP understand that this
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> issue isn't "coming out nowhere".]<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> George Kirikos<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> 416-588-0269<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="http://www.leap.com/"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.leap.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:24 PM, George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">icann@leap.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> Thanks for the updated document, and for reflecting many of the
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> comments I had previously submitted:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002890.html"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002890.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> Some additional thoughts:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> A] On page 13 of the redline document, Q10 (with regards to the
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> "ghost-writing"), the question was not intended to be "incendiary",
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> as per Justine Chew's comment. The issue had been brought up in the
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> past by Paul Keating (a member of this PDP), in a comment to an
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> article in<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> 2010 on CircleID:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/naf_caught_revising_past_udrp_decisions"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.circleid.com/posts/naf_caught_revising_past_udrp_decisions</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> /<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> See his comment (#2) on that page, which I'll reproduce in full:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> "Jeff, Here are a few of the things that worry me about all of this:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> 1. No ADR provider is under contract with ICANN. There is thus
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> absolutely no accountability. Given NAF's history with the
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> authorities in connection with their having fixed the credit card
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> arbitration process, one wonders why this situation remains.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> 2. Concerning statistics (mostly about NAF) have come out regarding
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> repetative appointments of a select few panelists.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> 3. On prior occasions I have asked for corrections in NAF decisions
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> and have been told that it was not possible, that they would not
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> request panelists to do so, and they objected to any attempt on my
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> part to raise the issue directly with the panelists - even if copying
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> the other side in any correspondence.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> 4. I can understand the desire not to have matters continued post
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> decision - such would be contrary to the spirit of the UDRP.
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> However, to undertake a change to decisions without publication and
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> an audit function is simply unheard of. In the US as you know, when
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> a court alters an opinion it publishes notices of the modification
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> and it is the judges who are doing the modification. Here there is
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> no indication at all that any panelist made the request and no public
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> record keeping of the change.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> Overall, the ADR providers are a law unto themselves. There is no
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> appeal and no accountability. WHile 4(k) allows a post-UDRP legal
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> action, no care was taken when writing the UDRP to investigate
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> whether a proper cause of action exists for such a proceeding in the
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> "Mutual Jurisdiction". There are no standards for panelists (one is
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> a traffic judge with no IP experience at all). Appointments are not
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> statistically random. They create their own supplemental rules.
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> They actively and selectively promote lines of decisions (e.g. WIPO's
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> Panel Guidelines). In the case of NAF they are (with reason)
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> suspected of having inside clerks ghost-write opinions for delivery
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> to the panelists. Now this. We are in a race to the bottom here.
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> While overall I would say that the vast majority of decisions are
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> correctly decided, it is worrying that registrants are forced by
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> contract to participate in such a system. The proper test for a
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> judicial system is not whether it gets it right in the easy cases but
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> rather it has adequate protections to ensure that the difficult ones
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> are treated properly. "<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> Given that, I thought it appropriate to ask that particular question,
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> so that the providers can let us know whether that ghost-writing is
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> actually happening or not. Frankly, I found it disturbing that it
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> might be happening when I first learned of that possibility back in
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> 2010, and if it's happening, then the rules need to be strengthened.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> B] With regards to the "Effect of Court Proceedings" question (page
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> 15 of the redline document), we know that WIPO is aware of court
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> proceedings after UDRPs (see:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/</span></a> , although they've
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> failed to update that regularly, despite new cases being brought to
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> their attention). Perhaps something similar exists for the URS. If
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> the providers aren't aware of it (and you'd think they would be,
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> given their "suspension' nameservers would be changed by the registry
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> operator to reflect a court proceeding), then the registry operators
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> should be asked (since they'd probably be ordered to change the
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> nameservers back).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> C]. With regards to the final question on page 16 (running on to page
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> 17), Sub Teams shouldn't be making "conclusions" on anything
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> (decisions are made by the entire membership, not subteams). As to
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> the merits/scope of that question, it's not been all rainbows and
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> unicorns at NAF. I think it's important to know whether they've
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> actually learned from their past, and adopted changes to reflect the
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> concerns in those serious legal matters. If they haven't, that it's
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> just been "business as usual" for the domain-related cases (after no
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> longer doing consumer credit disputes), then that has policy
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> implications. If we as a PDP simply go with the answers already
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> submitted, that's fine with me, but I was bending over backwards to
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> give them a chance to improve their answers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> George Kirikos<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> 416-588-0269<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="http://www.leap.com/"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.leap.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Ariel Liang <<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">ariel.liang@icann.org</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Hello everyone,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> In preparation for tomorrow’s WG call, please be so kind to find
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> attached the redline document of the proposed questions to URS
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Providers. The document includes comments/suggestions from WG
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> members, and the input/feedback to these comments/suggestions from
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> the Providers Sub Team (received by the deadline at 12:00 UTC on Tuesday, 24 April).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Please be so kind to review this redline document prior to the call
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> tomorrow (Wednesday, 25 April at 12:00 UTC). Thanks again to those
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> who have commented and provided input!<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</span></a>> on behalf of Julie
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">julie.hedlund@icann.org</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> To: "<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</span></a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> 25 April 2018 at 1200 UTC<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Dear RPM PDP WG members,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Group call Wednesday, 25 April 2018, scheduled for 1200 UTC (note
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> earlier time – calendar invite will be sent via separate email):<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Proposed Agenda:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest Status of Questions
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> for Practitioners Finalize Questions for Providers Notice of agenda
<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> for 02 May meeting<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered)"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoPapDefault
{margin-bottom:8.0pt;
line-height:107%;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style><div class="WordSection1"><br><table class="MsoTableGrid" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none"><tbody><tr><td valign="top"><a href="http://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/index.html?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2018" target="blank"><img width="100" height="100" id="Picture 1" src="https://www3.wipo.int/export/sites/www3/shared/images/ipday_signature_option1.png" alt=" Colorful silhouette of a woman’s head, representing the theme of the World IP Day campaign."></a></td><td valign="top"><strong><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#E41267">Powering change:</span><br><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#E41267">Women in innovation and creativity</span><br><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F3677">World Intellectual Property Day 2018</span><br><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#2FB7E1">April 26</span><br></strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="http://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/index.html?utm_source=wipomail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=ipday2018">wipo.int/ipday</a><span style="color:#006FC9"> </span><span style="color:black">#worldipday</span></span></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p> </p><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></blockquote></span></body></html>