[gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

Paul Keating Paul at law.es
Wed May 2 14:24:27 UTC 2018


My questions were intended to investigate an area that has been the cause
of significant concern - particularly amongst the Respondent¹s attorney
side of things.  

First, the presumption in the UDRP is that the panelists are in fact
neutral.  While there is a provision for the ADR provider to state as
much, we have no insight into how that is determined and what, if any,
efforts are undertaken to investigate or police statements of neutrality.

Second, there is no guidance in any of the applicable rules dealing with
conflicts of interest and no guidance on how ³neutrality² is actually
determined, other than perhaps a statement from the panelist.  I have
never seen or heard of any guidance provided to panelists by any ADR
provider.

Third, while I am happy that people discuss and edit the suggested
questions, I would  like to point out a few things:

	1.	"actual or potential conflict² is a well-known ethical standard for
attorneys and they are well versed in its meaning.  Most professional
conduct codes have restrictions that preclude attorneys (or their firms)
from accepting or acting on behalf of clients that have an actual or
potential conflict with pre-existing clients (or even past clients).
Conflicts are verified as a part of any new client intake.  Conflicts are
measured in terms of the client and parties that are potentially adverse
to any client.  Again, this is on a firm-wide basis and not limited to
individual attorneys.  Unfortunately, it is less than clear if these same
rules apply when an attorney accepts an appointment as an arbitrator with
an ADR provider.  And, the extend to which panelists conduct conflicts
checks (or even if they do) is unknown.  Moreover, there are a number of
panelists who are not licensed attorneys.

	2.	I cannot see that any of the proposed questions are offensive in any
manner.  As an attorney I would expect to conduct a full-fledged conflicts
check prior to accepting any appointment.

	3.	Contacts with third parties.  This question is intended to go beyond
mere contacts with third parties and includes self-research, contact and
communications with anyone else (e.g. Partners, associates, etc).  The
point is that the decision is supposed to be based entirely upon the
papers as filed and in the rare instance investigations undertaken by the
panel.  However, there is nothing in the Rules that would authorize, for
example, research undertaken by anyone else and provided to the panelists.

	4.	These questions should also be directed to the ADR providers to
determine what extent, if any, they impose rules and to what extent, if
any, they police the issue of conflicts beyond mere reliance upon the
panelist statement.


Paul
 

On 5/2/18, 3:09 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos"
<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:

>I agree with Michael. We can play around with the wording somewhat,
>but it's an important issue. DomainNameWire.com had a story that some
>might find of interest at:
>
>https://domainnamewire.com/2018/03/29/a-troubling-connection-in-a-udrp/
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>416-588-0269
>http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Michael Karanicolas
><mkaranicolas at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "The Examiners are supposed to declare conflicts of interest, but
>> there is no instruction on how to implement that."
>>
>> To me - that's a powerful argument as to why we should be including
>> these questions. It's an important area where the rules seem vague,
>> and there could be a need for greater clarity. Questions about whether
>> or not a strong standard is being carried out in practice would be
>> very relevant to making that determination.
>>
>> That said - I do think there's room for improving the verbiage. I
>> agree that the phrase "actual or potentially adverse" could be deleted
>> from Q5. I think Q6 could be improved by narrowing it to
>> communications with a third party related to the dispute.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Michael Karanicolas
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
>> <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
>>> Dear All:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Below are the questions being referred to. I likewise object to these
>>> questions which have an underlying assumption that Panelists are
>>>somehow
>>> biased and don¹t screen conflicts properly.  It also assumes that the
>>> panelists are all attorneys at law firms and the law firms do not have
>>> proper screening mechanisms for conflicts.  Simply put, most of these
>>> questions are loaded questions that are meant to further a particular
>>> agenda.  If we are going to go down the route of these type of loaded
>>> questions, should we also be asking about attorneys, for example,  who
>>> represent parties that registered names with bogus contact information
>>> whether they conducted a thorough check so that they can certify that
>>>they
>>> truthfully identified the party they are representing and how they
>>>conducted
>>> that check (e.g., what mechanisms are in place and all steps taken).
>>>After
>>> all the ethical rules make clear that attorneys are bound by
>>>requirements
>>> that attorneys be truthful.  In that vein, should we also ask whether
>>>the
>>> attorneys representing parties have been truthful and checked the
>>>facts that
>>> they are stating in their papers ­ and what steps they take to certify
>>>and
>>> insure this.  I can think of several examples I personally know of
>>>where an
>>> attorney simply lied in the submissions.  Should this now be an entire
>>>line
>>> of inquiry.  Should we ask whether Rule 11 type sanctions be available
>>>in
>>> URS cases where an attorney representing a party is found to represent
>>>a
>>> party with fake contact information or has lied in the papers.  I can
>>>think
>>> of many more loaded lines of inquiries if that what some want to do,
>>>but
>>> ultimately I don¹t think these are going to be productive in moving
>>>the ball
>>> forward.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In light of the questions that were suggested on the provider side of
>>> things, I think the only issue to raise is whether Panelists are
>>>impartial
>>> per the requirements of the rules and what providers do to make sure
>>>that is
>>> the case ­ and nothing more, .  These questions should not be here and
>>> should be deleted in their entirety
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.    Do you serve as a URS panelist?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A. Yes
>>>
>>> B. No
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. If yes, do you undertake 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A. Yes
>>>
>>> B. No
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If yes, please briefly describe the methods used to verify the absence
>>>of
>>> conflicts:___________________________________________________¹
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If yes, do you retain records of your search?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A. Yes
>>>
>>> B. No
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Have you ever communicated with a third party regarding an ongoing
>>>URS
>>> dispute in which you were a panelist?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A. Yes
>>>
>>> B. No
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If yes, please briefly explain the nature of such
>>> communications:_________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>>Greg
>>> Shatan
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 1:05 AM
>>> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER: Proposed agenda for RPM Working
>>>Group
>>> call on 25 April 2018 at 1700 UTC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am also troubled by the questions themselves.  Singling out these
>>> questions, out of all that we might ask Examiners, seems vaguely
>>>accusatory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 opposite 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For that reason, I will not discuss the problems in the follow-up
>>>questions
>>> on conflict checks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 if we were putting together a poll for Examiners.)  Is
>>>it
>>> improper to "communicate" with your spouse about a URS case?  With one
>>>of
>>> your law partners? With a fellow Examiner?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Long story short, these questions should be deleted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Julie Hedlund
>>><julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear RPM PDP WG members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Proposed Agenda:
>>>
>>> Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest (1 minute)
>>> Final Status of Questions for Practitioners and Providers (9 minutes)
>>> Report from the Documents Sub Team (20 minutes)
>>> Discussion on URS Phase II proposal (59 minutes)  See John McElwaine¹s
>>> original email at:
>>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002857.html and a
>>> Google Sheet with the proposal as tab one, and the responses as tab
>>>two at:
>>> 
>>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1apbVrFayn_vbPfhKDpjYs66iBWjvwhWF
>>>GZbuGpQnOgI/edit?usp=sharing
>>> Notice of agenda for 09 May meeting (1 minute)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Confidentiality Notice:
>>> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
>>> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
>>> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended
>>>by
>>> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
>>> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and
>>>attorney
>>> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
>>> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
>>> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us
>>> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the
>>>original
>>> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any
>>>manner.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S.
>>>federal tax
>>> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is
>>>not
>>> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
>>>(i)
>>> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
>>> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
>>> addressed herein.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg




More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list