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

[Michael Graham (ELCA)]

And the lack of knowledge certainly supports the lack of partiality based on knowledge.

Michael R.

From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Doug Isenberg
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:46 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM March 15 session - questions from George Kirikos

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<mailto: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<mailto:icann at leap.com>>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180404/a347363a/attachment.html>