<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have significant objections to the questions to Examiners that were tacked on to the end of the Practitioners questionnaire at the 11th hour. Apologies for not focusing on this before now. I don't believe these have really been properly reviewed or discussed.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I believe these questions are inappropriate in a poll of practitioners, as these are questions directed to "panelists." (The proper term is Examiner....) It feels like a "bait and switch" tactic. If we are going to survey Examiners, let's survey Examiners -- not ambush practitioners. On that basis alone, we should eliminate these questions.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I am also troubled by the questions themselves. Singling out these questions, out of all that we might ask Examiners, seems vaguely accusatory. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The basis for these questions is questionable. I've reviewed the URS Procedures and Rules, and none of these questions comes out of a Procedure or Rule. The Examiners are supposed to declare conflicts of interest, but there is no instruction on how to implement that. As such, there is no requirement that an Examiner undertake any type of conflicts check much less something as specific as "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." Asking the question implies that this is an imperative when it is not.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">On top of that, this verbiage does not accurately describe a conflict check. What is a "potentially adverse conflict of interest"? Why is it only asking about adverse conflicts? I note that the Forum does have a Supplementary Rule that "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 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." This does not ask the Examiner to run a conflict check, but notably, the issue it raises is the exact<span> </span><u>opposite</u> of the issue implied in these proposed questions -- the Forum is highlighting representing a party, not being adverse (much less "potentially adverse) to a party.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Now, I'm not saying it's a bad idea for an Examiner to run a (properly defined) conflict check, but the very fact that we are debating Examiner actions and requirements in a practitioners poll should tell us we're in the wrong place.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">For that reason, I will not discuss the problems in the follow-up questions on conflict checks.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The final question is even worse. ("Have you ever communicated with a third party regarding an ongoing URS dispute in which you were a panelist?') As far as I know, this is not prohibited behavior, especially not this broadly described. It seems designed to make people feel like they might have done something wrong. (If this is expressly prohibited by the Rules or Procedures, then perhaps we could fashion a question out of that Rule/Procedure<span> </span><u>if we were putting together a poll for Examiners</u>.) Is it improper to "communicate" with your spouse about a URS case? With one of your law partners? With a fellow Examiner?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Long story short, these questions should be deleted.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Julie Hedlund <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org" target="_blank">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class="m_3096627011750983672WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_3096627011750983672__MailOriginalBody">Dear RPM PDP WG members,<u></u><u></u></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 02 May 2018, scheduled for 1700 UTC. Times are proposed as estimates and may be adjusted.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Proposed Agenda:<u></u><u></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span>Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest (1 minute)<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span>Final Status of Questions for Practitioners and Providers (9 minutes)<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span>Report from the Documents Sub Team (20 minutes)<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span>Discussion on URS Phase II proposal (59 minutes) See John McElwaine’s original email at: </span><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002857.html" target="_blank"><span>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002857.<wbr>html</span><span></span></a><span> and a Google Sheet with the proposal as tab one, and the responses as tab two at: </span><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1apbVrFayn_vbPfhKDpjYs66iBWjvwhWFGZbuGpQnOgI/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank"><span>https://docs.google.com/<wbr>spreadsheets/d/1apbVrFayn_<wbr>vbPfhKDpjYs66iBWjvwhWFGZbuGpQn<wbr>OgI/edit?usp=sharing</span><span></span></a><span> <u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span>Notice of agenda for 09 May meeting (1 minute)<u></u><u></u></span></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>