Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases
Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [The image of the 2018 GII cover shows crashing waves captured within the outline of a battery cell, representing the raw power of innovation.][wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1554143A.htm> case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1760252F.htm> case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1673323A.htm> case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): 1554143 wolfram.ceoWolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al.URS04/22/2014Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]05/06/2014 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.emailLockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al.URS06/10/2014Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]08/06/2014 1564796 mwe.emailMcDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al.URS06/17/2014Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]08/07/2014 1628473 eos.blackfridayCanon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al.URS07/13/2015Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]09/13/2015 1637103 tagheuer.digitalLVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al.URS09/11/2015Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]11/23/2015 1672049 sanofi.xinSANOFI v. 苏威 et al.URS04/26/2016Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]06/28/2016 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.clubInterbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.URS05/06/2016Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]06/15/2016 1681062 grey.emailGrey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al.URS06/27/2016Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]08/10/2016 1716444 greubel-forsey.watchGFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al.URS02/08/2017Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]03/23/2017 1760252 virginmobile.topVirgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al.URS11/30/2017Suspended Default [adrforum.com] Final [adrforum.com]01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: 1587022 holidayinn.wangSix Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al.URS10/29/2014Suspended Default [adrforum.com] Final [adrforum.com]11/24/2014 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufenDr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al.URS12/03/2014Suspended Default [adrforum.com]12/22/2014 1613317 bankofthewest.moneyBank of the West, N.A. v. Peter KeatingURS04/08/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]04/27/2015 1620565 urbanoutfitters.saleUrban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain AdministratorURS05/28/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]06/17/2015 1636250 fxcm.topForex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan changURS09/08/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]09/28/2015 1734989 schneider-electric.storeSCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private PersonURS06/08/2017Suspended Default [adrforum.com]06/28/2017 Best, Brian [wipo.int] GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]#GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1554143A.htm> case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1760252F.htm> case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1673323A.htm> case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
Paul, I agree with Phil on the burden of proof. The examination standards and burden of proof are set forth in Rule 8 of the Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>. It seems to me both de novo processes simply involve a new ‘trial’ on the issues. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:52 AM To: Paul@law.es; McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1554143A.htm> case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1760252F.htm> case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1673323A.htm> case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
So then (and excuse my question) what is the actual difference between “review” of a default and an “appeal”? PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>, "mary.wong@icann.org" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Paul, I agree with Phil on the burden of proof. The examination standards and burden of proof are set forth in Rule 8 of the Procedures. It seems to me both de novo processes simply involve a new ‘trial’ on the issues. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:52 AM To: Paul@law.es; McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): 1554143 wolfram.ceoWolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al.URS04/22/2014Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]05/06/2014 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.emailLockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al.URS06/10/2014Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]08/06/2014 1564796 mwe.emailMcDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al.URS06/17/2014Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]08/07/2014 1628473 eos.blackfridayCanon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al.URS07/13/2015Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]09/13/2015 1637103 tagheuer.digitalLVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al.URS09/11/2015Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]11/23/2015 1672049 sanofi.xinSANOFI v. 苏威 et al.URS04/26/2016Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]06/28/2016 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.clubInterbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.URS05/06/2016Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]06/15/2016 1681062 grey.emailGrey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al.URS06/27/2016Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]08/10/2016 1716444 greubel-forsey.watchGFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al.URS02/08/2017Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]03/23/2017 1760252 virginmobile.topVirgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al.URS11/30/2017Suspended Default [adrforum.com] Final [adrforum.com]01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: 1587022 holidayinn.wangSix Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al.URS10/29/2014Suspended Default [adrforum.com] Final [adrforum.com]11/24/2014 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufenDr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al.URS12/03/2014Suspended Default [adrforum.com]12/22/2014 1613317 bankofthewest.moneyBank of the West, N.A. v. Peter KeatingURS04/08/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]04/27/2015 1620565 urbanoutfitters.saleUrban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain AdministratorURS05/28/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]06/17/2015 1636250 fxcm.topForex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan changURS09/08/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]09/28/2015 1734989 schneider-electric.storeSCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private PersonURS06/08/2017Suspended Default [adrforum.com]06/28/2017 Best, Brian [wipo.int] GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]#GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
I think this is an area we should try to bring some clarity to, Paul. There are differences – one is that reviews appear to be open only to defaulters under Rule 6.4 – and to file for review you can have up to 12 months (six months plus one possible extension). Appeals, under Rule 12.4, will be available to either party but non-defaulters seem to have this appeal alone – with a 14-day filing period. Having said this, I am no expert on URS and would propose that the WG discuss this topic and possible clarification efforts. David From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:18 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases So then (and excuse my question) what is the actual difference between “review” of a default and an “appeal”? PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Paul, I agree with Phil on the burden of proof. The examination standards and burden of proof are set forth in Rule 8 of the Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>. It seems to me both de novo processes simply involve a new ‘trial’ on the issues. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:52 AM To: Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1554143A.htm> case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1760252F.htm> case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1673323A.htm> case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
Thanks David and Paul, Certainly this looks to be an area for discussion, including possible recommendations for improved clarity both on the appeals/review language and on their timing/processes. Look forward to speaking tomorrow. Brian From: McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 6:26 PM To: Paul@law.es; Corwin, Philip; mary.wong@icann.org; BECKHAM, Brian; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases I think this is an area we should try to bring some clarity to, Paul. There are differences – one is that reviews appear to be open only to defaulters under Rule 6.4 – and to file for review you can have up to 12 months (six months plus one possible extension). Appeals, under Rule 12.4, will be available to either party but non-defaulters seem to have this appeal alone – with a 14-day filing period. Having said this, I am no expert on URS and would propose that the WG discuss this topic and possible clarification efforts. David From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:18 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases So then (and excuse my question) what is the actual difference between “review” of a default and an “appeal”? PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Paul, I agree with Phil on the burden of proof. The examination standards and burden of proof are set forth in Rule 8 of the Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>. It seems to me both de novo processes simply involve a new ‘trial’ on the issues. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:52 AM To: Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1554143A.htm> case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1760252F.htm> case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1673323A.htm> case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [Image removed by sender. The image of the 2018 GII cover shows crashing waves captured within the outline of a battery cell, representing the raw power of innovation.][wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
I am sorry but I will not be able to attend due to another commitment. From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:30 PM To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, "mary.wong@icann.org" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks David and Paul, Certainly this looks to be an area for discussion, including possible recommendations for improved clarity both on the appeals/review language and on their timing/processes. Look forward to speaking tomorrow. Brian From: McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 6:26 PM To: Paul@law.es; Corwin, Philip; mary.wong@icann.org; BECKHAM, Brian; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases I think this is an area we should try to bring some clarity to, Paul. There are differences – one is that reviews appear to be open only to defaulters under Rule 6.4 – and to file for review you can have up to 12 months (six months plus one possible extension). Appeals, under Rule 12.4, will be available to either party but non-defaulters seem to have this appeal alone – with a 14-day filing period. Having said this, I am no expert on URS and would propose that the WG discuss this topic and possible clarification efforts. David From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:18 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases So then (and excuse my question) what is the actual difference between “review” of a default and an “appeal”? PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>, "mary.wong@icann.org" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Paul, I agree with Phil on the burden of proof. The examination standards and burden of proof are set forth in Rule 8 of the Procedures. It seems to me both de novo processes simply involve a new ‘trial’ on the issues. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:52 AM To: Paul@law.es; McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): 1554143 wolfram.ceoWolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al.URS04/22/2014Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]05/06/2014 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.emailLockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al.URS06/10/2014Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]08/06/2014 1564796 mwe.emailMcDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al.URS06/17/2014Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]08/07/2014 1628473 eos.blackfridayCanon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al.URS07/13/2015Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]09/13/2015 1637103 tagheuer.digitalLVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al.URS09/11/2015Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]11/23/2015 1672049 sanofi.xinSANOFI v. 苏威 et al.URS04/26/2016Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]06/28/2016 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.clubInterbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.URS05/06/2016Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]06/15/2016 1681062 grey.emailGrey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al.URS06/27/2016Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]08/10/2016 1716444 greubel-forsey.watchGFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al.URS02/08/2017Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]03/23/2017 1760252 virginmobile.topVirgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al.URS11/30/2017Suspended Default [adrforum.com] Final [adrforum.com]01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: 1587022 holidayinn.wangSix Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al.URS10/29/2014Suspended Default [adrforum.com] Final [adrforum.com]11/24/2014 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufenDr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al.URS12/03/2014Suspended Default [adrforum.com]12/22/2014 1613317 bankofthewest.moneyBank of the West, N.A. v. Peter KeatingURS04/08/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]04/27/2015 1620565 urbanoutfitters.saleUrban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain AdministratorURS05/28/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]06/17/2015 1636250 fxcm.topForex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan changURS09/08/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]09/28/2015 1734989 schneider-electric.storeSCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private PersonURS06/08/2017Suspended Default [adrforum.com]06/28/2017 Best, Brian [wipo.int] GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]#GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
Hello Paul, Thank you for this, we have noted your apology for this meeting. Kind regards, Michelle From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:34 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases I am sorry but I will not be able to attend due to another commitment. From: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:30 PM To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, "mary.wong@icann.org" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks David and Paul, Certainly this looks to be an area for discussion, including possible recommendations for improved clarity both on the appeals/review language and on their timing/processes. Look forward to speaking tomorrow. Brian From: McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 6:26 PM To: Paul@law.es; Corwin, Philip; mary.wong@icann.org; BECKHAM, Brian; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases I think this is an area we should try to bring some clarity to, Paul. There are differences – one is that reviews appear to be open only to defaulters under Rule 6.4 – and to file for review you can have up to 12 months (six months plus one possible extension). Appeals, under Rule 12.4, will be available to either party but non-defaulters seem to have this appeal alone – with a 14-day filing period. Having said this, I am no expert on URS and would propose that the WG discuss this topic and possible clarification efforts. David From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:18 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases So then (and excuse my question) what is the actual difference between “review” of a default and an “appeal”? PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Paul, I agree with Phil on the burden of proof. The examination standards and burden of proof are set forth in Rule 8 of the Procedures [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>. It seems to me both de novo processes simply involve a new ‘trial’ on the issues. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:52 AM To: Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_ap...>). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [Image removed by sender. The image of the 2018 GII cover shows crashing waves captured within the outline of a battery cell, representing the raw power of innovation.][wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
Agree that this seems to be an aspect of the URS where some clarification would be desirable. 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: BECKHAM, Brian [mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:31 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; Paul@law.es; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks David and Paul, Certainly this looks to be an area for discussion, including possible recommendations for improved clarity both on the appeals/review language and on their timing/processes. Look forward to speaking tomorrow. Brian From: McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 6:26 PM To: Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>; Corwin, Philip; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; BECKHAM, Brian; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases I think this is an area we should try to bring some clarity to, Paul. There are differences – one is that reviews appear to be open only to defaulters under Rule 6.4 – and to file for review you can have up to 12 months (six months plus one possible extension). Appeals, under Rule 12.4, will be available to either party but non-defaulters seem to have this appeal alone – with a 14-day filing period. Having said this, I am no expert on URS and would propose that the WG discuss this topic and possible clarification efforts. David From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:18 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases So then (and excuse my question) what is the actual difference between “review” of a default and an “appeal”? PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Paul, I agree with Phil on the burden of proof. The examination standards and burden of proof are set forth in Rule 8 of the Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>. It seems to me both de novo processes simply involve a new ‘trial’ on the issues. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:52 AM To: Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1554143A.htm> case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1760252F.htm> case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1673323A.htm> case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
That is how I read it. But, The word “review” seems different to me than “appeal” and signifies a lesser standard of assessment. For example in a review is the respondent (who defaulted) able to file anything or merely request that the Panel reconsider based on what was already filed by the complainant? If it is exactly the same then it seems the confusion could be eliminated by simply incorporating the additional time period in Section 12 for defaults and eliminate the duplicative but somewhat inconsistent language of 6.4. PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:26 PM To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, "mary.wong@icann.org" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases I think this is an area we should try to bring some clarity to, Paul. There are differences – one is that reviews appear to be open only to defaulters under Rule 6.4 – and to file for review you can have up to 12 months (six months plus one possible extension). Appeals, under Rule 12.4, will be available to either party but non-defaulters seem to have this appeal alone – with a 14-day filing period. Having said this, I am no expert on URS and would propose that the WG discuss this topic and possible clarification efforts. David From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:18 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases So then (and excuse my question) what is the actual difference between “review” of a default and an “appeal”? PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>, "mary.wong@icann.org" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Paul, I agree with Phil on the burden of proof. The examination standards and burden of proof are set forth in Rule 8 of the Procedures. It seems to me both de novo processes simply involve a new ‘trial’ on the issues. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:52 AM To: Paul@law.es; McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): 1554143 wolfram.ceoWolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al.URS04/22/2014Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]05/06/2014 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.emailLockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al.URS06/10/2014Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]08/06/2014 1564796 mwe.emailMcDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al.URS06/17/2014Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]08/07/2014 1628473 eos.blackfridayCanon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al.URS07/13/2015Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]09/13/2015 1637103 tagheuer.digitalLVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al.URS09/11/2015Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]11/23/2015 1672049 sanofi.xinSANOFI v. 苏威 et al.URS04/26/2016Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]06/28/2016 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.clubInterbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.URS05/06/2016Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]06/15/2016 1681062 grey.emailGrey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al.URS06/27/2016Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]08/10/2016 1716444 greubel-forsey.watchGFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al.URS02/08/2017Suspended Final [adrforum.com] Appeal [adrforum.com]03/23/2017 1760252 virginmobile.topVirgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al.URS11/30/2017Suspended Default [adrforum.com] Final [adrforum.com]01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: 1587022 holidayinn.wangSix Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al.URS10/29/2014Suspended Default [adrforum.com] Final [adrforum.com]11/24/2014 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufenDr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al.URS12/03/2014Suspended Default [adrforum.com]12/22/2014 1613317 bankofthewest.moneyBank of the West, N.A. v. Peter KeatingURS04/08/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]04/27/2015 1620565 urbanoutfitters.saleUrban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain AdministratorURS05/28/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]06/17/2015 1636250 fxcm.topForex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan changURS09/08/2015Suspended Default [adrforum.com]09/28/2015 1734989 schneider-electric.storeSCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private PersonURS06/08/2017Suspended Default [adrforum.com]06/28/2017 Best, Brian [wipo.int] GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]#GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
That might be one solution, Paul. The ‘review’ under rule 6 allows for a ‘response’ to be submitted up to a year after the notice of default and once the response is submitted the case is considered as if responded to in a timely manner. So, this ‘de novo’ review is like the first hearing – it just happens after a default was entered. But it is called ‘de novo’ because the default judgment itself involved a hearing – the examiner cannot simply enter default – he/she has to examine the evidence from the complainant just as it otherwise would even though the respondent is not officially present in the record. I think there is at least one case where the complainant lost even though the respondent defaulted. The ‘appeal’ under Rule 12 is based on the existing record but it does allow appellant to pay a fee to be able to introduce new material evidence so long as that evidence pre-dates the filing of the complaint. They are close – we should be able to sort this out. But it remains the case that the defaulter alone can have up to three ‘hearings’ of a sort ((1) initial examination on complainant’s evidence, (2) review (like initial exam but with more evidence as indicated in response), (3) appeal). David From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 1:37 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases That is how I read it. But, The word “review” seems different to me than “appeal” and signifies a lesser standard of assessment. For example in a review is the respondent (who defaulted) able to file anything or merely request that the Panel reconsider based on what was already filed by the complainant? If it is exactly the same then it seems the confusion could be eliminated by simply incorporating the additional time period in Section 12 for defaults and eliminate the duplicative but somewhat inconsistent language of 6.4. PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:26 PM To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases I think this is an area we should try to bring some clarity to, Paul. There are differences – one is that reviews appear to be open only to defaulters under Rule 6.4 – and to file for review you can have up to 12 months (six months plus one possible extension). Appeals, under Rule 12.4, will be available to either party but non-defaulters seem to have this appeal alone – with a 14-day filing period. Having said this, I am no expert on URS and would propose that the WG discuss this topic and possible clarification efforts. David From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:18 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases So then (and excuse my question) what is the actual difference between “review” of a default and an “appeal”? PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Paul, I agree with Phil on the burden of proof. The examination standards and burden of proof are set forth in Rule 8 of the Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>. It seems to me both de novo processes simply involve a new ‘trial’ on the issues. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:52 AM To: Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1554143A.htm> case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1760252F.htm> case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf>, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz<http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1673323A.htm> case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
Hello everyone, and with thanks for all the comments! If it will help, here is a staff attempt to summarize what the current URS seems to provide for on this topic: * A “de novo review” is governed by Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure, and may be requested by a Respondent after a Default Determination has been issued, up to 6 months after a Notice of Default, with (as David has noted) the possibility of a further 6-month extension (“if after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default” and “Registrant will also be entitled to request an extension of an additional six months if the extension is requested before the expiration of the initial six-month period”). Note that (as David has mentioned as well) under Section 6.3 “All Default cases proceed to Examination for review on the merits of the claim”. * An “appeal” within the URS framework (i.e. not a separate court filing) is governed by Section 12 of the URS Procedure, and may be requested by either party within 14 days of either a Default or Final Determination (“Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal”; an “Appeal must be filed within fourteen (14) days after a Default or Final Determination is issued and any Response must be filed fourteen (14) days after an appeal is filed”). * For either process, the same standard of proof applies (“clear and convincing”) – for an Appeal, the Appellant has “a limited right to introduce new admissible evidence that is material to the Determination subject to payment of an additional fee, provided the evidence clearly pre-dates the filing of the Complaint”. * For either process, the Examiner or Appeal Panel (as applicable) reviews the case de novo (i.e. the merits of the case are considered anew). Therefore, and as summarized by David below - a Respondent may miss the initial 14-day response period, but if the Examiner issues a Default Determination in favor of the Complainant the Respondent still has the ability to file a Response at that point (within the 6-month (with extension) period) and request a de novo review, following which review an Appeal remains available to either party. Conversely, a Respondent could file a Response within the 14 days, in which case it will not be a Default case – but following the Examiner’s determination, an Appeal will still remain available to either party. We hope we captured the scope accurately, and look forward to the Sub Team’s discussion, including on the various possible discussion points noted by David. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie & Ariel From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 14:00 To: "Paul@law.es" <Paul@law.es>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases That might be one solution, Paul. The ‘review’ under rule 6 allows for a ‘response’ to be submitted up to a year after the notice of default and once the response is submitted the case is considered as if responded to in a timely manner. So, this ‘de novo’ review is like the first hearing – it just happens after a default was entered. But it is called ‘de novo’ because the default judgment itself involved a hearing – the examiner cannot simply enter default – he/she has to examine the evidence from the complainant just as it otherwise would even though the respondent is not officially present in the record. I think there is at least one case where the complainant lost even though the respondent defaulted. The ‘appeal’ under Rule 12 is based on the existing record but it does allow appellant to pay a fee to be able to introduce new material evidence so long as that evidence pre-dates the filing of the complaint. They are close – we should be able to sort this out. But it remains the case that the defaulter alone can have up to three ‘hearings’ of a sort ((1) initial examination on complainant’s evidence, (2) review (like initial exam but with more evidence as indicated in response), (3) appeal). David From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 1:37 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; brian.beckham@wipo.int; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases That is how I read it. But, The word “review” seems different to me than “appeal” and signifies a lesser standard of assessment. For example in a review is the respondent (who defaulted) able to file anything or merely request that the Panel reconsider based on what was already filed by the complainant? If it is exactly the same then it seems the confusion could be eliminated by simply incorporating the additional time period in Section 12 for defaults and eliminate the duplicative but somewhat inconsistent language of 6.4. PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:26 PM To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases I think this is an area we should try to bring some clarity to, Paul. There are differences – one is that reviews appear to be open only to defaulters under Rule 6.4 – and to file for review you can have up to 12 months (six months plus one possible extension). Appeals, under Rule 12.4, will be available to either party but non-defaulters seem to have this appeal alone – with a 14-day filing period. Having said this, I am no expert on URS and would propose that the WG discuss this topic and possible clarification efforts. David From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:18 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases So then (and excuse my question) what is the actual difference between “review” of a default and an “appeal”? PRK From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>>, "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Paul, I agree with Phil on the burden of proof. The examination standards and burden of proof are set forth in Rule 8 of the Procedures [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>. It seems to me both de novo processes simply involve a new ‘trial’ on the issues. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:52 AM To: Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases The burden of proof in any URS action should always be clear and convincing evidence, to differentiate it from the UDRP’s preponderance of the evidence standard. 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-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 11:47 AM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>>; mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases David, Is there a difference in the standard of proof in the context of a review vs appeal? I agree that there should not be 2 bites at the apple and rather prefer a reading that allows the respondent a special period to appeal a default as opposed to the period specified in 12.1. PRK From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-documents" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Reply-To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:12 PM To: "mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>" <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: "Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>" <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Thanks Mary, Brian, Berry, and all: I have done a review of the 10 ‘de novo’ cases listed in Brian’s email and will be able to speak about them on our next call – I have drawn a few conclusions about how we might be able to handle appeal cases generally a bit more clearly - I say ‘generally’ because there are both de novo reviews and de novo appeals and the terminology can become confusing. Some of those ten listed cases are de novo appeals of actual determinations below (see. e.g., the wolfram.ceo [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> case), while at least one other is a de novo review of a default determination (see, e.g., the virginmobile.top [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> case). It is easy to get these mixed up – in fact in the wolfram.ceo case (linked below) the appeal examiner said, “Appellant requests a de novo review …” – when it was actually a de novo appeal rather than a review. I realized that sounds a minor quibble indeed, but clarification around terminology could be a useful thing for us to do. These cases are very confusing in their terminology. As to the specific meaning of de novo review, as Mary asks about, it gets at default determinations under Rule 6.4 of the URS Procedures [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, as Mary notes. Rule 6.4 provides, in part, as follows: 6.4 If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant, Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. … [Emphasis added] Rule 6.5 makes it clear that de novo reviews are not appeals. On the other hand, it is Rule 12 that provides for appeals. Rule 12.1 uses the term ‘de novo’ to describe essentially any appeal: Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party is appealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination was incorrect. [Emphasis added] Rule 12.4 also makes it clear that defaults are appealable. Possible implications for our work: In my opinion, this exercise shows some useful procedural points we can make about terminology, use of forms, suggestions for writing, etc. (On suggestions for writing, we may simply encourage examiners to write short paragraphs and use sub-headings. Try reading through the findings of fact in the brandchannel.xyz [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> case to see what I mean.) And we could clear up some confusion between rules 6 and 12 (why, for example, does rule 12.4 allow for direct ‘appeal’ of a default rather than going through a ‘review’ under 6.4 as that Rule allows?) And, in my opinion, a policy issue arises from this exercise: Do we wish to allow to defaulters to have two bites at the ‘de novo’ apple – both (1) a de novo review and (2) a de novo appeal under Rule 12.1 (presumably of the determination made in the de novo review)? That is how it reads to me, would be curious if others see the rules that way. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:45 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hello Brian and everyone, Just following up on the topic of the number of URS cases where a de novo review occurred, Berry had asked previously what the Sub Team’s understanding is of what that means – for example, the staff understanding had been that the term as used in this PDP referred specifically to those cases where a Default Determination was first issued (since no Response had been filed within the initial 14-day response period), but a Response was then subsequently filed before the permissible 6-month window expired (see, e.g. Section 6.4 of the URS Procedure: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/procedure-01mar13-en.pdf [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_ap...>). This understanding would therefore exclude cases where an Appeal occurred (of which we know there were 14 as of end-December 2017) and, of course, also exclude cases where no Response was filed and thus the Default Determination stands. Staff believes that clarifying this point is essential, especially as it will make a difference to the number of cases to be reviewed under this heading. We will therefore appreciate the Sub Team’s guidance on this point. In the meantime, and to assist with your review of the cases in this category, staff has gone through and compiled a table (with links to the actual Final Determination) of all the URS cases where a Final Determination (i.e. not a Default or Appeal) was issued and published. You will see from the attached that our count of these cases amounts to 29, with 13 of them showing that both a Default as well as a Final Determination were published. We have also for the present refrained from tagging or using the phrase “de novo review” pending confirmation from the Sub Team. We hope the attached information and list is useful, especially to David M and Brian who had brought up the topic and for which David had volunteered to assist with the initial review. Please note that we have not had the chance to cross-check all the entries against our other tables and spreadsheets, but in the interests of time we wanted to get the initial table out to the Sub Team for your review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary, Berry, Julie and Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 11:54 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Cc: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS "de novo" and "delay" cases Hi all, Following on our good call last week, below are the 10 cases in which a “de novo” review was, according to a search on the NAF site, was in play (I believe David McAuley was willing to look at these to see if there were any conclusions to draw): * 1554143 wolfram.ceo Wolfram Group LLC v. Andrew Davis et al. URS 04/22/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 05/06/2014 * 1563665 lockheed.email, lockheedmartin.email Lockheed Martin Corporation v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/10/2014 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/06/2014 * 1564796 mwe.email McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. yoyo.email et al. URS 06/17/2014 Suspended Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/07/2014 * 1628473 eos.blackfriday Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. North Sound Names et al. URS 07/13/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/13/2015 * 1637103 tagheuer.digital LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. GiftSMS et al. URS 09/11/2015 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/23/2015 * 1672049 sanofi.xin SANOFI v. 苏威 et al. URS 04/26/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2016 * 1673323 brandchannel.xyz, interbrand.club Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al. URS 05/06/2016 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/15/2016 * 1681062 grey.email Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al. URS 06/27/2016 Claim Denied Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 08/10/2016 * 1716444 greubel-forsey.watch GFPI S.A. v. Michael Meyer et al. URS 02/08/2017 Suspended Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Appeal [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 03/23/2017 * 1760252 virginmobile.top Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie et al. URS 11/30/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 01/19/2018 Also, FYI – to recall there were no cases where “laches” appeared and 6 (pasted below) where “delay” appeared: * 1587022 holidayinn.wang Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. hong yong et al. URS 10/29/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> Final [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 11/24/2014 * 1592905 porsche.kaufen, porsche-design.kaufen Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. visucom ag et al. URS 12/03/2014 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 12/22/2014 * 1613317 bankofthewest.money Bank of the West, N.A. v. Peter Keating URS 04/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 04/27/2015 * 1620565 urbanoutfitters.sale Urban Outfitters, Inc v. Domain Administrator URS 05/28/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/17/2015 * 1636250 fxcm.top Forex Capital Markets LLC v. zechuan chang URS 09/08/2015 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 09/28/2015 * 1734989 schneider-electric.store SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Private Person URS 06/08/2017 Suspended Default [adrforum.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...> 06/28/2017 Best, Brian [Image removed by sender. The image of the 2018 GII cover shows crashing waves captured within the outline of a battery cell, representing the raw power of innovation.][wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2018 Energizing the World with Innovation Launch July 10 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2018 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-documents mailing list Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-documents
participants (6)
-
BECKHAM, Brian -
Corwin, Philip -
Mary Wong -
McAuley, David -
Michelle DeSmyter -
Paul Keating