Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
Hi, The proposed rephrasing turns it into a completely different question. I would request that we keep the question as is and, honestly, I would ask that we stop re-opening this, as it's been argued to death and we reached a compromise already, as reflected in the previous wording. I, too, was at the GNSO session in San Jose, and I remember "reopening closed discussions" was high on the list of disruptive behaviours that was mentioned. Let's move on, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?”
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not *represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today* (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
I support Brian’s language tying the question to URS rules. Cyntia King E: <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 1:51 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, The proposed rephrasing turns it into a completely different question. I would request that we keep the question as is and, honestly, I would ask that we stop re-opening this, as it's been argued to death and we reached a compromise already, as reflected in the previous wording. I, too, was at the GNSO session in San Jose, and I remember "reopening closed discussions" was high on the list of disruptive behaviours that was mentioned. Let's move on, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org> > wrote: Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
I support Michael's claim, the wording changes again the meaning, is not superfluous. We already had a compromised view on this one. If do this, we will re open a closed debate, there's nothing stopping us from doing that, but I think we are passed that point. Since it changes the meaning, we can add a new question with that phrasing keeping both, slightly differently but difference enough. Cheers, Martín On Fri, May 4, 2018, 4:02 PM Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> wrote:
I support Brian’s language tying the question to URS rules.
*Cyntia King*
E: cking@modernip.com
O: +1 81-ModernIP
C: +1 818.209.6088
[image: MIP Composite (Email)]
*From:* Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Michael Karanicolas *Sent:* Friday, May 4, 2018 1:51 PM *To:* Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Hi,
The proposed rephrasing turns it into a completely different question.
I would request that we keep the question as is and, honestly, I would ask that we stop re-opening this, as it's been argued to death and we reached a compromise already, as reflected in the previous wording.
I, too, was at the GNSO session in San Jose, and I remember "reopening closed discussions" was high on the list of disruptive behaviours that was mentioned. Let's move on, please.
Best,
Michael
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?”
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not *represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today* (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
+1 Brian. Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On 5 May 2018 at 02:43, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?”
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not *represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today* (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question's wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?: "What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?" In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian's desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael's explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases. 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-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 - we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: "What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain." Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: "What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?" His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require "demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law", which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to "parties in" domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
Phil, Thank you for your re-wording for clarity, I am in support of it. Justine ----- On 5 May 2018 at 03:37, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers < gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> wrote:
In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?”
In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases.
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-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?”
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not *represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today* (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
Hi, Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows: Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain. Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers < gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> wrote:
In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?”
In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases.
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-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?”
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not *represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today* (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
I understand your position, Michael, and hope that Brian and others can accept your suggestion so that we can get these questions out to Providers on schedule. We need to do so to meet our timeline obligations and to get answers back for analysis and discussion prior to and at our meetings at ICANN 62 Panama. Speaking solely for myself, I must observe that we had a very smooth and amicable process in both sub-teams until this week, when first a series of past-deadline questions for Practitioners were submitted (which now seem on the verge of being worked out), and now this past-deadline rewording of a question for Providers. Following regular order exists to both thoroughly vet proposed questions and other WG actions in a fair and predictable manner, as well as to avoid precisely this type of situation. It is up to the WG, but I believe that in the future we should strictly enforce agreed upon deadlines, even if that means automatic rejection of what may be well-intentioned and even meritorious proposals. In other words, "You snooze, you lose." I invite discussion of this suggestion by WG members - do you want the co-chairs to be strict or flexible on deadline enforcement? If we accept late submissions that you like then we have no authority to reject those you don't, and we don't want to be judge and jury on any resulting disputes. 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: Michael Karanicolas [mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 3:51 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: ariel.liang@icann.org; gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows: Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain. Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> wrote: In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question's wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?: "What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?" In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian's desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael's explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases. 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-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 - we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: "What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain." Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: "What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?" His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require "demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law", which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to "parties in" domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
Hi Michael and everyone, Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with. We hope this clarifies the timing. Cheers Mary & Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows: Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain. Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> wrote: In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?” In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases. 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-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
Thanks for that clarification, Mary. C’mon people, let’s get this worked out. 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: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 4:11 PM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi Michael and everyone, Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with. We hope this clarifies the timing. Cheers Mary & Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows: Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain. Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> wrote: In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?” In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases. 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-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
My comennt is in line with what Michael proposed. I think is the best solution. Cheers, Martín Silva On Fri, May 4, 2018, 5:12 PM Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers < gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks for that clarification, Mary.
C’mon people, let’s get this worked out.
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:* Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2018 4:11 PM *To:* Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; Corwin, Philip < pcorwin@verisign.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Hi Michael and everyone,
Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with.
We hope this clarifies the timing.
Cheers
Mary & Ariel
*From: *Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 *To: *"Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Hi,
Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows:
Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background?
Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.
Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please.
Best,
Michael
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers < gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> wrote:
In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?”
In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases.
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-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?”
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not * represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today* (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
I’m all-in for Phil’s proposed wording: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?” Cyntia King E: <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Martin Pablo Silva Valent Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 3:16 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian My comennt is in line with what Michael proposed. I think is the best solution. Cheers, Martín Silva On Fri, May 4, 2018, 5:12 PM Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> > wrote: Thanks for that clarification, Mary. C’mon people, let’s get this worked out. 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: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 4:11 PM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com <mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> >; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> > Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi Michael and everyone, Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with. We hope this clarifies the timing. Cheers Mary & Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com <mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> > Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> > Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> " <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows: Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain. Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> > wrote: In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?” In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases. 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-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
Hi, I understand you have been placed in a difficult position, and I certainly don't mean to add to the challenges. My impression was that we already had worked this out - we have language that was agreed - and I don't think we should be debating it further (though, as I mentioned, I've no objection to adding Brian's question separately).
From my perspective, the approved providers questions are good to go.
Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for that clarification, Mary.
C’mon people, let’s get this worked out.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> Reston, VA 20190
703 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> -948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2018 4:11 PM *To:* Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; Corwin, Philip < pcorwin@verisign.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Hi Michael and everyone,
Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with.
We hope this clarifies the timing.
Cheers
Mary & Ariel
*From: *Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 *To: *"Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Hi,
Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows:
Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background?
Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.
Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please.
Best,
Michael
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers < gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> wrote:
In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?”
In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> Reston, VA 20190
703 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> -948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?”
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not * represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today* (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
It appears it’s up to Phil to ‘split the baby’. Guess that’s why they pay him the big bucks. I’ll monitor my email over the weekend in case anything else comes up before sending off the survey. Cyntia King E: <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 7:48 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, I understand you have been placed in a difficult position, and I certainly don't mean to add to the challenges. My impression was that we already had worked this out - we have language that was agreed - and I don't think we should be debating it further (though, as I mentioned, I've no objection to adding Brian's question separately).
From my perspective, the approved providers questions are good to go.
Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> > wrote: Thanks for that clarification, Mary. C’mon people, let’s get this worked out. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 4:11 PM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com <mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> >; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> > Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi Michael and everyone, Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with. We hope this clarifies the timing. Cheers Mary & Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-providers < <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas < <mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> mkaranicolas@gmail.com> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 To: "Corwin, Philip" < <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: " <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows: Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain. Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> > wrote: In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?” In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
Thanks Mary, though I am still a bit mystified as to whether this is common practice. As you note, the issue was raised 8 days ago. Paul and myself both responded, Brian did not, and the discussion moved on until the group found a compromise. If a participant has additional inputs - shouldn't they raise them directly with the group, as opposed to going through staff for revisions? It's particularly troubling that this was presented as a new revision on a Friday afternoon with barely a couple of hours to respond. We shouldn't have to monitor this list 24 hours a day to ensure that language which has been carefully debated and vetted won't be surreptitiously substituted out on a whim from a participant. This isn't comparable to someone rolling in a couple of hours past the deadline - this is a question of a member (and potentially a future chair...) taking the initiative to undo hours of debate and discussion on the list. Anyway - I don't mean to belabour this, as my hope is that this issue is now closed, and that we can move forward with the language we had already approved, but I felt the need to write again because if we approach this from the perspective than any issue which has been debated and decided remains subject to reopening anytime a member writes in, I think it will be very difficult to make any progress. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Michael and everyone,
Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with.
We hope this clarifies the timing.
Cheers
Mary & Ariel
*From: *Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 *To: *"Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Hi,
Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows:
Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background?
Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.
Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please.
Best,
Michael
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers < gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> wrote:
In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?”
In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> Reston, VA 20190
703 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> -948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?”
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not * represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today* (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
Hi All, I agree w/ Phil’s earlier email noting that regular order should generally be observed. I can’t help but note that, in this case, we’re sending out a long questionnaire that will inform our future efforts. I don’t think a single, last-minute question is a terrible hardship. Certainly not fun on a Friday night, but understandable. I appreciate the effort everyone has made to get this done, even up to the last minute. Cyntia King E: <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 7:41 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Thanks Mary, though I am still a bit mystified as to whether this is common practice. As you note, the issue was raised 8 days ago. Paul and myself both responded, Brian did not, and the discussion moved on until the group found a compromise. If a participant has additional inputs - shouldn't they raise them directly with the group, as opposed to going through staff for revisions? It's particularly troubling that this was presented as a new revision on a Friday afternoon with barely a couple of hours to respond. We shouldn't have to monitor this list 24 hours a day to ensure that language which has been carefully debated and vetted won't be surreptitiously substituted out on a whim from a participant. This isn't comparable to someone rolling in a couple of hours past the deadline - this is a question of a member (and potentially a future chair...) taking the initiative to undo hours of debate and discussion on the list. Anyway - I don't mean to belabour this, as my hope is that this issue is now closed, and that we can move forward with the language we had already approved, but I felt the need to write again because if we approach this from the perspective than any issue which has been debated and decided remains subject to reopening anytime a member writes in, I think it will be very difficult to make any progress. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > wrote: Hi Michael and everyone, Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with. We hope this clarifies the timing. Cheers Mary & Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com <mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> > Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> > Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows: Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain. Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> > wrote: In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?” In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> Reston, VA 20190 703 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> -948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
Hello everyone, Thanks very much for providing input within such a short notice on a Friday afternoon/evening. If there is no strong objection to Michael’s suggestion -- have two separate questions, or perhaps format it as a two-part question (“Q14: A) What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? B) What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”) -- staff will send out the all questions to the Providers. In the meantime, staff will share Michael’s suggested wording to Brian for information. Unfortunately, Brian probably would not be able to respond by tomorrow AM in Europe, but our deadline for sending out the questions to Providers is tonight. Staff will wait for a couple of more hours (close to midnight EST), in case there is any further comment. Thank you all for your time and contribution to this effort! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:13 PM To: 'Michael Karanicolas' <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi All, I agree w/ Phil’s earlier email noting that regular order should generally be observed. I can’t help but note that, in this case, we’re sending out a long questionnaire that will inform our future efforts. I don’t think a single, last-minute question is a terrible hardship. Certainly not fun on a Friday night, but understandable. I appreciate the effort everyone has made to get this done, even up to the last minute. Cyntia King E: cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com> O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 [IP Composite (Email)] From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 7:41 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Thanks Mary, though I am still a bit mystified as to whether this is common practice. As you note, the issue was raised 8 days ago. Paul and myself both responded, Brian did not, and the discussion moved on until the group found a compromise. If a participant has additional inputs - shouldn't they raise them directly with the group, as opposed to going through staff for revisions? It's particularly troubling that this was presented as a new revision on a Friday afternoon with barely a couple of hours to respond. We shouldn't have to monitor this list 24 hours a day to ensure that language which has been carefully debated and vetted won't be surreptitiously substituted out on a whim from a participant. This isn't comparable to someone rolling in a couple of hours past the deadline - this is a question of a member (and potentially a future chair...) taking the initiative to undo hours of debate and discussion on the list. Anyway - I don't mean to belabour this, as my hope is that this issue is now closed, and that we can move forward with the language we had already approved, but I felt the need to write again because if we approach this from the perspective than any issue which has been debated and decided remains subject to reopening anytime a member writes in, I think it will be very difficult to make any progress. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Michael and everyone, Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with. We hope this clarifies the timing. Cheers Mary & Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows: Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain. Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> wrote: In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?” In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way [maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D...> Reston, VA 20190 703 [maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-2B-250D-250A-2B703-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=EWQpO4ymTtJ0SZsuinikiKMJkRq9qosA90KXtwI4VMY&s=mOE5RTiAhZdjYrUEguf-NAmd4i87VzNuZxHukD5HDNY&e=>-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
Dear Providers Sub Team, Not hearing further comments by midnight EST, staff have sent the final consolidated list of questions to the URS Providers, and please find the clean copy attached. Again, thanks everyone for your time and contributions! In response to Justine’s very helpful feedback provided on Tuesday, 1 May, the final consolidated list has kept all the questions that Justine suggested to retain. Regarding the Effect of Court Proceedings Q1, since no one else in the Sub Team or the full WG has voiced concerns, staff has retained the reworded question. In consultation with the Co-Chairs, staff suggested to the Providers that Friday, 8 June 2018 would be ideal to receive their responses. As the Providers communicated previously, they may need more time to complete responses to some of the questions. We will follow up with the Providers and keep you updated with the progress. Thank you all, and have a great weekend! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:24 PM To: Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com>, 'Michael Karanicolas' <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hello everyone, Thanks very much for providing input within such a short notice on a Friday afternoon/evening. If there is no strong objection to Michael’s suggestion -- have two separate questions, or perhaps format it as a two-part question (“Q14: A) What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? B) What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”) -- staff will send out the all questions to the Providers. In the meantime, staff will share Michael’s suggested wording to Brian for information. Unfortunately, Brian probably would not be able to respond by tomorrow AM in Europe, but our deadline for sending out the questions to Providers is tonight. Staff will wait for a couple of more hours (close to midnight EST), in case there is any further comment. Thank you all for your time and contribution to this effort! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:13 PM To: 'Michael Karanicolas' <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi All, I agree w/ Phil’s earlier email noting that regular order should generally be observed. I can’t help but note that, in this case, we’re sending out a long questionnaire that will inform our future efforts. I don’t think a single, last-minute question is a terrible hardship. Certainly not fun on a Friday night, but understandable. I appreciate the effort everyone has made to get this done, even up to the last minute. Cyntia King E: cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com> O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 [P Composite (Email)] From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 7:41 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Thanks Mary, though I am still a bit mystified as to whether this is common practice. As you note, the issue was raised 8 days ago. Paul and myself both responded, Brian did not, and the discussion moved on until the group found a compromise. If a participant has additional inputs - shouldn't they raise them directly with the group, as opposed to going through staff for revisions? It's particularly troubling that this was presented as a new revision on a Friday afternoon with barely a couple of hours to respond. We shouldn't have to monitor this list 24 hours a day to ensure that language which has been carefully debated and vetted won't be surreptitiously substituted out on a whim from a participant. This isn't comparable to someone rolling in a couple of hours past the deadline - this is a question of a member (and potentially a future chair...) taking the initiative to undo hours of debate and discussion on the list. Anyway - I don't mean to belabour this, as my hope is that this issue is now closed, and that we can move forward with the language we had already approved, but I felt the need to write again because if we approach this from the perspective than any issue which has been debated and decided remains subject to reopening anytime a member writes in, I think it will be very difficult to make any progress. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Michael and everyone, Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with. We hope this clarifies the timing. Cheers Mary & Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows: Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain. Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org>> wrote: In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?” In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way [maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D...> Reston, VA 20190 703 [maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-2B-250D-250A-2B703-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=EWQpO4ymTtJ0SZsuinikiKMJkRq9qosA90KXtwI4VMY&s=mOE5RTiAhZdjYrUEguf-NAmd4i87VzNuZxHukD5HDNY&e=>-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
Thanks, Ariel & Staff. Have a good weekend. Cyntia From: Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 4, 23:01 Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Dear Providers Sub Team, Not hearing further comments by midnight EST, staff have sent the final consolidated list of questions to the URS Providers, and please find the clean copy attached. Again, thanks everyone for your time and contributions! In response to Justine’s very helpful feedback provided on Tuesday, 1 May, the final consolidated list has kept all the questions that Justine suggested to retain. Regarding the Effect of Court Proceedings Q1, since no one else in the Sub Team or the full WG has voiced concerns, staff has retained the reworded question. In consultation with the Co-Chairs, staff suggested to the Providers that Friday, 8 June 2018 would be ideal to receive their responses. As the Providers communicated previously, they may need more time to complete responses to some of the questions. We will follow up with the Providers and keep you updated with the progress. Thank you all, and have a great weekend! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:24 PM To: Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com>, 'Michael Karanicolas' <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hello everyone, Thanks very much for providing input within such a short notice on a Friday afternoon/evening. If there is no strong objection to Michael’s suggestion -- have two separate questions, or perhaps format it as a two-part question (“Q14: A) What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? B) What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”) -- staff will send out the all questions to the Providers. In the meantime, staff will share Michael’s suggested wording to Brian for information. Unfortunately, Brian probably would not be able to respond by tomorrow AM in Europe, but our deadline for sending out the questions to Providers is tonight. Staff will wait for a couple of more hours (close to midnight EST), in case there is any further comment. Thank you all for your time and contribution to this effort! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:13 PM To: 'Michael Karanicolas' <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi All, I agree w/ Phil’s earlier email noting that regular order should generally be observed. I can’t help but note that, in this case, we’re sending out a long questionnaire that will inform our future efforts. I don’t think a single, last-minute question is a terrible hardship. Certainly not fun on a Friday night, but understandable. I appreciate the effort everyone has made to get this done, even up to the last minute. Cyntia King E: cking@modernip.com O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 7:41 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Thanks Mary, though I am still a bit mystified as to whether this is common practice. As you note, the issue was raised 8 days ago. Paul and myself both responded, Brian did not, and the discussion moved on until the group found a compromise. If a participant has additional inputs - shouldn't they raise them directly with the group, as opposed to going through staff for revisions? It's particularly troubling that this was presented as a new revision on a Friday afternoon with barely a couple of hours to respond. We shouldn't have to monitor this list 24 hours a day to ensure that language which has been carefully debated and vetted won't be surreptitiously substituted out on a whim from a participant. This isn't comparable to someone rolling in a couple of hours past the deadline - this is a question of a member (and potentially a future chair...) taking the initiative to undo hours of debate and discussion on the list. Anyway - I don't mean to belabour this, as my hope is that this issue is now closed, and that we can move forward with the language we had already approved, but I felt the need to write again because if we approach this from the perspective than any issue which has been debated and decided remains subject to reopening anytime a member writes in, I think it will be very difficult to make any progress. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Hi Michael and everyone, Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with. We hope this clarifies the timing. Cheers Mary & Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 15:51 To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Hi, Brian is positing a very different question than I had asked, and I don't think the two can be effectively merged. That said, I think Brian's question is relevant, and I think a better compromise would be to include it alongside the one that we previously agreed to, as follows: Q14: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background? Q15: What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain. Let me add that I'm quite surprised that this debate has been reopened at the request of a single member (who's not a co-chair yet...). What's the point in having any discussion at all on the lists or in the calls if anyone can just stroll in and completely upend the agreed language on a Friday afternoon, when half the world has already logged off? We spent a lot of time on this question already - let's not throw all that out the window, please. Best, Michael On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org> wrote: In regard to this very late suggestion for a change in the question’s wording, can we resolve it with this proposed wording?: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which includes their having a diversity of relevant experience, such as representing Respondents as well as Complainants in domain name cases)?” In the spirit of compromise, that retains Brian’s desire to tie the question to the specific wording of the URS Rules while also retaining Michael’s explicit designation of the two parties in domain name cases. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way [maps.google.com] Reston, VA 20190 703 [maps.google.com]-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:43 PM To: gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list Gnso-rpm-providers@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers
participants (8)
-
Ariel Liang -
Cking Modern IP -
Corwin, Philip -
Cyntia King
-
Justine Chew -
Martin Pablo Silva Valent -
Mary Wong -
Michael Karanicolas