Thanks for the updated document, and for reflecting many of the comments I had previously submitted: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002890.html Some additional thoughts: A] On page 13 of the redline document, Q10 (with regards to the "ghost-writing"), the question was not intended to be "incendiary", as per Justine Chew's comment. The issue had been brought up in the past by Paul Keating (a member of this PDP), in a comment to an article in 2010 on CircleID: http://www.circleid.com/posts/naf_caught_revising_past_udrp_decisions/ See his comment (#2) on that page, which I'll reproduce in full: "Jeff, Here are a few of the things that worry me about all of this: 1. No ADR provider is under contract with ICANN. There is thus absolutely no accountability. Given NAF's history with the authorities in connection with their having fixed the credit card arbitration process, one wonders why this situation remains. 2. Concerning statistics (mostly about NAF) have come out regarding repetative appointments of a select few panelists. 3. On prior occasions I have asked for corrections in NAF decisions and have been told that it was not possible, that they would not request panelists to do so, and they objected to any attempt on my part to raise the issue directly with the panelists - even if copying the other side in any correspondence. 4. I can understand the desire not to have matters continued post decision - such would be contrary to the spirit of the UDRP. However, to undertake a change to decisions without publication and an audit function is simply unheard of. In the US as you know, when a court alters an opinion it publishes notices of the modification and it is the judges who are doing the modification. Here there is no indication at all that any panelist made the request and no public record keeping of the change. Overall, the ADR providers are a law unto themselves. There is no appeal and no accountability. WHile 4(k) allows a post-UDRP legal action, no care was taken when writing the UDRP to investigate whether a proper cause of action exists for such a proceeding in the "Mutual Jurisdiction". There are no standards for panelists (one is a traffic judge with no IP experience at all). Appointments are not statistically random. They create their own supplemental rules. They actively and selectively promote lines of decisions (e.g. WIPO's Panel Guidelines). In the case of NAF they are (with reason) suspected of having inside clerks ghost-write opinions for delivery to the panelists. Now this. We are in a race to the bottom here. While overall I would say that the vast majority of decisions are correctly decided, it is worrying that registrants are forced by contract to participate in such a system. The proper test for a judicial system is not whether it gets it right in the easy cases but rather it has adequate protections to ensure that the difficult ones are treated properly. " Given that, I thought it appropriate to ask that particular question, so that the providers can let us know whether that ghost-writing is actually happening or not. Frankly, I found it disturbing that it might be happening when I first learned of that possibility back in 2010, and if it's happening, then the rules need to be strengthened. B] With regards to the "Effect of Court Proceedings" question (page 15 of the redline document), we know that WIPO is aware of court proceedings after UDRPs (see: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ , although they've failed to update that regularly, despite new cases being brought to their attention). Perhaps something similar exists for the URS. If the providers aren't aware of it (and you'd think they would be, given their "suspension' nameservers would be changed by the registry operator to reflect a court proceeding), then the registry operators should be asked (since they'd probably be ordered to change the nameservers back). C]. With regards to the final question on page 16 (running on to page 17), Sub Teams shouldn't be making "conclusions" on anything (decisions are made by the entire membership, not subteams). As to the merits/scope of that question, it's not been all rainbows and unicorns at NAF. I think it's important to know whether they've actually learned from their past, and adopted changes to reflect the concerns in those serious legal matters. If they haven't, that it's just been "business as usual" for the domain-related cases (after no longer doing consumer credit disputes), then that has policy implications. If we as a PDP simply go with the answers already submitted, that's fine with me, but I was bending over backwards to give them a chance to improve their answers. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
In preparation for tomorrow’s WG call, please be so kind to find attached the redline document of the proposed questions to URS Providers. The document includes comments/suggestions from WG members, and the input/feedback to these comments/suggestions from the Providers Sub Team (received by the deadline at 12:00 UTC on Tuesday, 24 April).
Please be so kind to review this redline document prior to the call tomorrow (Wednesday, 25 April at 12:00 UTC). Thanks again to those who have commented and provided input!
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 25 April 2018 at 1200 UTC
Dear RPM PDP WG members,
Per the WG Co-Chairs, here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 25 April 2018, scheduled for 1200 UTC (note earlier time – calendar invite will be sent via separate email):
Proposed Agenda:
Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest Status of Questions for Practitioners Finalize Questions for Providers Notice of agenda for 02 May meeting
Best regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg