[gnso-rpm-wg] [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Final Draft Questions for Practitioners -- Final due

Doug Isenberg Doug at Giga.Law
Mon May 7 13:25:23 UTC 2018


A couple of quick questions/comments:

 

1.	Why does Practical Issues question #7 include a footnote with
citation to the Procedure and the Rules to explain what is meant by
"existing time frames" when other questions do not take a similar approach?
(For example, there are no citations to what is meant by the "word
limitation" in Practical Issues question #6, the "filing fee" for Practical
Issues question #3, the "limitations on submission of evidence" in Practical
Issues question #8, etc.)  Because many questions could include such
citations, perhaps it would be better (or at least more consistent) not to
include footnotes for any question, because doing so seems to bring
unnecessary attention to certain questions.
2.	I wonder whether it is appropriate to include Substantive Issues
question #1, which asks about creating an "Overview" of URS determinations,
since there have been relatively few URS determinations at this stage that
contain anything more than little to no substantive analysis.  I believe
that WIPO's original Overview of the UDRP was not published until 2004 or
2005, when there had already been several thousand UDRP decisions (most all
of which contain substantive analysis).  So, I'm not sure that it would be
practical to create a comparable Overview for the URS, regardless of whether
users would want tone.
3.	Practical Issues question #4 ("Do you believe the response fee for a
URS is appropriate") seems to imply that there is always a response fee,
which is not the case.
4.	Consider changing the language in Other question #5 from "neutral or
impartial manner" to "impartial and independent" to mirror the requirements
set forth in Rule 6(b) of the URS.

 


Douglas M. Isenberg

Attorney at Law

 <https://giga.law/> 


Phone: 1-404-348-0368

Email:  <mailto:Doug at Giga.Law> Doug at Giga.Law

Website:  <https://giga.law/> Giga.Law

 

 

 

 

From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jason
Schaeffer
Sent: Sunday, May 6, 2018 11:39 PM
To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>; Corwin, Philip
<pcorwin at verisign.com>; Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg
(gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org) <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] Final Draft Questions for
Practitioners -- Final due

 

Hi Kathy and Phil,

 

As requested, I am pleased to report that we were able to successfully take
the discussion off line and return to the WG with an updated Final Draft of
Questions for Practitioners.   Attached for final review and approval is a
revised redline that incorporates all questions that were previously
accepted and the new edits (on Page 8) that amend the questions from Paul
Keating regarding handling of potential conflicts of interests.

 

The edits are the work of those on copy here, and reflect over 1.5 hours of
collaboration on our Friday conference call on the topic.

 

I understand from Staff and the co-chairs that these surveys need to be
finalized.   Thus the rapid turnaround for the WG.

 

Thanks,

 

Jason

 

From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 10:48 AM
To: Corwin, Philip; Jason Schaeffer
Cc: Scott Austin; Georges Nahitchevansky; Petter Rindforth; paul at law.es
<mailto:paul at law.es> ; Greg Shatan; gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: Conference to Address Issue [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER
FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Questions for Practitioners -- Final due Monday, 30
April

 

Hi Jason and All,

I've cc'd the full Practitioners Subteam.  Per Jason's request, I think we
have a forum here for discussion. So let's take this off the main list and
resolve it here in the subteam - with Paul Keating now added.  

I've talked with Phil, and because the issue may take a day or two to
discuss, our deadline is now cob Sunday.

Best, Kathy

 

On 5/3/2018 10:05 AM, Corwin, Philip wrote:

Please do take it off list because it has introduced a divisiveness that was
absent until now. This is the problem when questions are submitted after sub
team and WG review deadlines have passed.  

 

Try to reach a solution, but the questions must be final by cob Friday. 

Sent from my iPhone


On May 3, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Jason Schaeffer <jason at esqwire.com
<mailto:jason at esqwire.com> > wrote:

Hi All:

 

I'm writing to our sub-group volunteers to invite Paul into this group to
take the discussion "off line" from the WG and see if we can work together
to find a suitable solution to allow us to move forward with our survey. 

 

We worked for many weeks to bring this forward to the Sub Team and WG.  I'd
like to see if we can use the same collaborative effort to see if we can
find a manner to improve upon the questions  added by Paul and see if there
is a path forward that does not raise such extreme objections.  

 

Can we discuss over the next two days and see if we can move this forward
and present to the WG?

 

Thanks,

 

Jason


On May 2, 2018, at 12:42 AM, Scott Austin <SAustin at vlplawgroup.com
<mailto:SAustin at vlplawgroup.com> > wrote:

Greg:

Thank you Greg, I agree as a member of the sub team who worked long and hard
on the survey questions to encourage practitioners to respond, this 11th
hour add on will have exactly the opposite effect, by insinuation it reads
like a malpractice interrogatory, addressed to examiners not practitioners,
at a minimum chilling candid response and possibly skewing the results
entirely. Should be deleted from a survey of practitioners. 

Best regards,

Scott

 

Please click below to  use my booking calendar to schedule:

   <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/15min> a 15-minute call    a 30-minute
call <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/30min>     a 60-minute call
<http://calendly.com/saustin-2/60min> 

   

<image001.png><image002.jpg>
<http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html>
<image003.jpg> 

Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law
Group LLP

101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin at VLPLawGroup.com
<mailto:SAustin at VLPLawGroup.com> 

 

From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 12:24 AM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >
Cc: gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>

Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft
Questions for Practitioners -- Final due Monday, 30 April

 

I have an issue, which I guess I will have to bring up to the RPM group as a
whole. I had not really focused on the questions tacked on to the very end.
I don't believe we ever discussed these in the sub-team or the sub-sub-team.
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.  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.

 

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 Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> > wrote:

Jason,

 

Thank you for guiding us through this process.  I think this turned out to
be a very successful and collaborative sub-team - due in no small part to
your approach in working with this group.   We had good contributions from
across the subteam (and the sub-sub-team) as well.

 

I believe we ended up with fair, well-formed questions that will maximize
the amount of useful information that results from this process - both in
terms of the raw data and in terms of analysis and results that will arise
from working with the data. 

 

Thanks again!

 

Greg

 

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:09 PM Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-practitioner
<gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org> >
wrote:

Well done, and thanks and congratulations to the sub-team members and to all
other who helped shape the final questions.

 

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

 

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

 

From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner [mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Jason
Schaeffer
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 2:44 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>; gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final
Draft Questions for Practitioners -- Final due Monday, 30 April

 

Hi Julie,

 

Thank you and staff for your ongoing assistance.  

 

Having heard no objection and considering the thoughtful debate and input
from members to help finalize these questions, I would be comfortable using
your latest edit as the final document from our sub-team.

 

Thanks,

 

Jason 

 

From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner [mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 9:05 AM
To: gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org>

Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Questions
for Practitioners -- Final due Monday, 30 April
Importance: High

 

Dear Jason and Practitioner Sub Team members,

 

Per the message below, please note that any comments from your review of the
attached questions are due COB today, 30 April.

 

Best regards,

Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

 

From: Gnso-rpm-practitioner <gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Julie
Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 1:56 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org> " <gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org> >
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-practitioner] FOR REVIEW: Final Draft Questions for
Practitioners -- Final due Monday, 30 April

 

Dear Jason and Practitioner Sub Team members,

 

Per the notes below from today's RPM WG meeting, the Practitioners Sub Team
is requested to review the attached final draft of the questions for
practitioners.  This redlined version includes the changes received since
last week's RPM WG call from Scott Austin, Brian Beckham, George Kirikos,
Greg Shatan, and David McAuley as of 24 April, which was the deadline for
comments.  

 

Also included for your review are new questions received from Paul Keating
on 25 April.  These new questions are included at the end of the "Other"
section on page 8.

 

In your review of the revised questions, please indicate whether there are
revisions with which you do not agree, and whether you have comments or
edits to suggest.  As noted above, the Sub Team is tasked with agreeing to a
final version of the questions by COB on Monday, 30 April, that staff will
then turn into a survey to be provided to the list of practitioners
previously agreed to by the Sub Team.

 

Please let staff know if you have any questions or need assistance.

 

Best,

Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

 

From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Julie Hedlund
<julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 1:08 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> "
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 25 April 2018

 

Dear All,

 

Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from the
Working Group call held on 25 April 2018 (1200 UTC).  Staff have posted to
the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these will be
high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or
recording.  The recording, transcript, Adobe Connect chat, and attendance
records are posted on the wiki.

 

The referenced document is attached.

 

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

Action Items:

 

1.	Questions for URS Practitioners: 

a.	The Sub Team will finalize the questions by Monday, 30 April.
b.	Staff will create a survey and send to the Practitioners.

2.	Questions for Providers: 

a.	Staff will close the document for review by Friday, 27 April and
send it to the Sub Team for a final review.
b.	The Sub Team will complete a review of the questions by COB Monday,
30 April.
c.	Staff will send the questions to the Providers.

Notes:

 

1. Questions for URS Practitioners:

 

-- Question 3: Edit from George re: Question three - Reword as two separate
questions - filing and response fees.

-- The Sub Team will finalize the questions by Monday, 30 April.

 

2. Questions for URS Providers:

 

-- Responses from most Providers that they can respond in 30 days for most
questions, and 45-60 days for questions that require a review of decisions.

-- Close the document for review by this Friday, 27 April and then send to
the Providers.

 

Review of the Questions:

 

Communications:

Question 2 - changes accepted.

Question 5 - new question b captures the concern from Brian Beckham, and c
addresses George's concern.

Question 6 - changes accepted.

Question 7 - changes accepted.

 

Complaints:

Question 4 - Correct the grammar; providers may need to consult with
examiners.  Question stays as amended.  It can stay in and that we
understand the limitations around it.

 

Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain

Question 5: This has been moved to another section, question 2 in
Communications: Rule 4(c): "The electronic copy of the Notice of Complaint
may be provided via email or an emailed link to an online platform requiring
users to create an account." It can be deleted here.  George and Brian have
accepted the edits.

 

The Response:

Question 1: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their
examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in.

Question 4: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their
examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in.

Question 11: Change to: "Have you received feedback that the Response period
is inadequate?"

Question 14: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their
examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in.

Question 15: DELETE.  Concerned about the definition of "domain investors".
It will be quite difficult if not impossible to get this information from
providers.  Doesn't seem much utility in the answers.  Also may be able to
get some of this information from determination data being gathered by
Rebecca.

 

Examiner:

Question 12b: No case of an abusive complaint - no entry in the abuse case
database - so is this question still necessary?  Leave it in because we want
to know if they have a policy.  Revise to include the URDP concept of RDNH.
Rewrite to ask whether the provider has a policy of allowing someone to be
an examiner if they also represent complainants.  

Question 12c: is suggesting that part c of the question isn't needed since
we already have responses from the providers.  But there is a difference
between how many examiners are on the roster and how many are actually
deciding decisions.  Edit to make this a more targeted question regarding
the size of the examiner pool, whether random assignment is used, etc. by
COB 25 April.

Question 13: Providers would not know the status of their examiners.
Examiners may not be willing or able to say either.  Also seems to be
suggesting that you can't represent both respondents and complainants.  Not
sure what is the point of the question.  ACTION: Rephrase to focus on panel
selection policy to encourage diversity in trademark practice.  Suggestion:
"What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a
diversity of relevant experience, e.g. have experience representing
respondents as well as complainants?"

 

Language:  Question 4: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with
their examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in.

 

In Person Hearings: DELETE. Question doesn't make sense.

 

Default:

Question 1: Seems to ask providers how they do something for a procedure
over which they have no control.  ACTION: Take it back to the Sub Team to
consider deleting.

Question 2: DELETE. We already have this information from the case review
for both within 6 months and after 6 months.

Question 3: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their
examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in

 

Examiner Determination:

Question 3: Providers plan to look at decisions and consult with their
examiners and get back to us in 60 days.  Leave the question in, but include
Brian's reformulation: "Noting URS Rules 13(a) that Examiners may 'make a
Determination .in accordance with .any rules and principles of law that it
deems applicable.' Are you aware whether any case that the Examiner has
invoked this rule?"

Question 8: Possibly duplicative.  ACTION: Take it back to the Sub Team to
consider deleting, or rephrase it.

Question 10: DELETE.  Provider can't know what the examiner assigns to
others in their office.  But could rephrase if they are aware or provide any
suggested language or clerical help to examiners.  George will send revised
language.

 

Remedies:

Question 4: This is seeking an opinion; keep it in.

Question 5: DELETE.  Keep it for the WG.

Question 6: Leave it in, but add: "If yes, what action did you take on
receiving the notice or to resolve the query?"

 

Effect of Court Proceeding.

Question 1: Ask David McAuley to send revised language.  Done: "To your
knowledge, have there been instances of legal proceedings relating to URS
proceedings and, if so, what effect did such instance(s) have?"

 

Others:

Question 3: Leave it in, and ask, "If so can you provide the type of
information or data requested.."  Also, combine with Question 4.

Question 4: See above.  Combine with question 3.

Question 6: Policy question.  Unless others have suggestions for rewriting
it, the question will be deleted.

Question 7: DELETE.  Determined to be out of scope.  Or, we could ask if
Providers support sanctions against abusers of the process whether
Complainant or Respondent.  Also, could ask all Providers if they clearly
disclose potential conflicts?  Or could ask FORUM specifically.  Hold off
decision on this call and discuss further, although leave it out of the list
of questions for now.

_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-practitioner mailing list
Gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-practitioner

 



This message contains information which may be confidential and legally
privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose
to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you
have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this
message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be
used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.

_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-practitioner mailing list
Gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-practitioner at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-practitioner

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180507/fcd7dfd2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3662 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180507/fcd7dfd2/image001-0001.png>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list