All,
One of the remaining topics for Appeals is to determine what the standard of review should be. The choices discussed are “De Novo” or “Clearly Erroneous.”
In theory it could be possible to have different standards of review depending on what is the issue being appealed. For example, for Conflicts of Interest determinations, we could state that such an appeal would be on a
De Novo standard, but for all other appeals, Clearly Erroneous. As a reminder, here are the different types of appeals:
My personal recommendation is that all appeals except for the Conflict of Interest appeals have a “Clearly Erroneous” standard. Conflict of Interests should be reviewed
under a De Novo Standard. To review anything else De Novo would be incredibly time consuming, costly, and could substantially delay applications. ICANN should have a thorough screening process to pick its evaluators/panelists and deference to
their determinations should be given. But determinations of Conflict of Interest seem to me to be appropriate for a De Novo standard because the original determination could be made by the party against whom the assertion of a conflict is made.
Thoughts?
Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 600, McLean
VA 22102, USA
M: +1.202.549.5079
D: +1.703.635.7514
E:
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
www.comlaude.com
![]()