Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers
Hello Paul and Phil, Thanks, Paul, for the suggested questions. As Phil mentioned, these questions may have already been covered by other proposed questions: Examiner Q3: (To MFSD) What is your conflict of interest policy for Examiners? How do you make the Examiners aware of their obligation to be impartial and independent? Q4: (To MFSD) How do your Examiners confirm their impartiality and independence? These two questions may have covered your questions: 3. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n); 4. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken. In addition. Forum and ADNDRC have already provided responses to this topic, hence the proposed questions are directed to MFSD: Forum: Supplemental Rules: 10. Impartiality and Independence (b) A Examiner will be disqualified if circumstances exist that create a conflict of interest or cause the Examiner to be unfair and biased, including but not limited to the following: (i) The Examiner has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts; (ii) The Examiner has served as an attorney to any party or the Examiner has been associated with an attorney who has represented a party during that association; (iii) The Examiner, individually or as a fiduciary, or the Examiner’s spouse or minor child residing in the Examiner’s household, has a direct financial interest in a matter before the Examiner; (iv) The Examiner or the Examiner’s spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (1) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a Party; or (2) Is acting as a lawyer or representative in the proceeding. From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:02 PM To: "Paul@law.es" <Paul@law.es>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers Paul: I can’t speak to the draft questions being prepared to Practitioners as I have had less involvement with that Sub-team, but I believe that the list of draft questions that will be going to Providers next week already covers these areas. I’m hereby asking staff to provide us with the accepted or still under discussion questions that focus on the same areas as your suggested questions so that we can compare them and determine whether what we already have is sufficient . These are valid areas of inquiry but we don’t want to be asking providers what is essentially the same question twice. Philip 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-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:09 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers Julie and all, First, my apologies for not responding yesterday but this was not received until after business hours in Barcelona. I propose to add the following questions to BOTH the practitioners AND ADR questions. The questions are intended to understand the process of ensuring against bias and conflicts of interest in the context of URS proceedings. To Providers: 1. Do you assign URS disputes to panelists on a random basis (y/n) 2. If no please briefly describe the process undertaken to select panelists in any given URS dispute 2. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n) 3. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:32 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers 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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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: 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Status of Questions for Practitioners 3. Finalize Questions for Providers 4. Notice of agenda for 02 May meeting Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
[apologies – re-sending the email with the complete message below] Hello Paul and Phil, Thanks, Paul, for the suggested questions. As Phil mentioned, these questions may have already been covered by other proposed questions to URS Providers: Examiner Q12(c): How large is the pool of URS Examiners? Are the Examiners randomly assigned, rotated, or assigned using some other procedure (please specify)? This question is under discussion and George Kirikos sent this revised text yesterday after the WG meeting. This question may have covered Paul’s questions: 1. Do you assign URS disputes to panelists on a random basis (y/n), 2. If no please briefly describe the process undertaken to select panelists in any given URS dispute. Please note, Providers have responded (or partially responded) to the proposed question during their ICANN61 presentation. ADNDRC: 180 Examiners -- Assignment of Examiners depends on the nature of the dispute, the availability of the Examiner (particularly important for URS proceedings considering its rapid nature), identity of the Parties, and nationality of the Parties (e.g. if an American trademark owner files a Complaint against a Chinese domain name holder, ADNDRC will not appoint an Examiner from either the US or China, but an Examiner with a neutral nationality). Assignment also depends on Examiners' independence and impartiality, their past experiences working with either URS Party, and the relevant legal background. FORUM: 122 Examiners -- Rotation with 4 cases assigned at a time, with exceptions made for Examiner's availability and language considerations. MFSD: 23 Examiners -- Assignment of Examiners is based on a case by case analysis. Examiner's language skills (in accordance with the language of the Response) are the most important factor. Another consideration is the availability of the Examiner due to the strict time frame of the proceeding. === Examiner Q3: (To MFSD) What is your conflict of interest policy for Examiners? How do you make the Examiners aware of their obligation to be impartial and independent? Q4: (To MFSD) How do your Examiners confirm their impartiality and independence? These two questions have been accepted by the WG and may cover Paul’s questions: 3. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n); and 4. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken. In addition, Forum and ADNDRC’s Supplemental Rules may have already provided answers to these questions, hence the proposed questions are directed to MFSD: Forum Supplemental Rules: 10. Impartiality and Independence (a) All FORUM Examiners will take an oath to be neutral and independent. (b) A Examiner will be disqualified if circumstances exist that create a conflict of interest or cause the Examiner to be unfair and biased, including but not limited to the following: (i) The Examiner has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts; (ii) The Examiner has served as an attorney to any party or the Examiner has been associated with an attorney who has represented a party during that association; (iii) The Examiner, individually or as a fiduciary, or the Examiner’s spouse or minor child residing in the Examiner’s household, has a direct financial interest in a matter before the Examiner; (iv) The Examiner or the Examiner’s spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (1) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a Party; or (2) Is acting as a lawyer or representative in the proceeding. ADNDRC Supplemental Rules: Article 8. Impartiality and Independence of Examiner 1. The Examiner shall be and remain at all times wholly impartial and independent, and shall not act as advocate for any Party during the URS proceedings. 2. Prior to the appointment of any proposed Examiner, the Examiner shall declare in writing to the Parties and the Relevant Office of the Centre any circumstances which are likely to create an impression of bias or prevent a prompt resolution of the dispute between the Parties. If, at any stage during the URS proceeding, new circumstances arise that could give rise to justifiable doubt as to the impartiality or independence of the Examiner, the Examiner shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the Provider. In such event, the Provider shall have the discretion to appoint a substitute Examiner. 3. Except by consent of the Parties, no person shall serve as an Examiner in any dispute in which that person has any interest, which, if a Party knew of it, might lead him/her to think that the Examiner might be biased. In accordance with ADNDRC Supplemental Rules, any appointed Examiner is required to disclose any ground giving rise to justifiable doubt of the independence/impartiality of an Examiner before the appointment, in writing to the Complaint intake ADNDRC office and the Parties. Hope this helps! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:02 PM To: "Paul@law.es" <Paul@law.es>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers Paul: I can’t speak to the draft questions being prepared to Practitioners as I have had less involvement with that Sub-team, but I believe that the list of draft questions that will be going to Providers next week already covers these areas. I’m hereby asking staff to provide us with the accepted or still under discussion questions that focus on the same areas as your suggested questions so that we can compare them and determine whether what we already have is sufficient . These are valid areas of inquiry but we don’t want to be asking providers what is essentially the same question twice. Philip 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-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:09 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers Julie and all, First, my apologies for not responding yesterday but this was not received until after business hours in Barcelona. I propose to add the following questions to BOTH the practitioners AND ADR questions. The questions are intended to understand the process of ensuring against bias and conflicts of interest in the context of URS proceedings. To Providers: 1. Do you assign URS disputes to panelists on a random basis (y/n) 2. If no please briefly describe the process undertaken to select panelists in any given URS dispute 2. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n) 3. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:32 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers 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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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: 1. Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Status of Questions for Practitioners 3. Finalize Questions for Providers 4. Notice of agenda for 02 May meeting Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Thanks Ariel. My Appologies. Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Apr 26, 2018, at 6:48 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
[apologies – re-sending the email with the complete message below]
Hello Paul and Phil,
Thanks, Paul, for the suggested questions. As Phil mentioned, these questions may have already been covered by other proposed questions to URS Providers:
Examiner Q12(c): How large is the pool of URS Examiners? Are the Examiners randomly assigned, rotated, or assigned using some other procedure (please specify)?
This question is under discussion and George Kirikos sent this revised text yesterday after the WG meeting. This question may have covered Paul’s questions: 1. Do you assign URS disputes to panelists on a random basis (y/n), 2. If no please briefly describe the process undertaken to select panelists in any given URS dispute.
Please note, Providers have responded (or partially responded) to the proposed question during their ICANN61 presentation.
ADNDRC: 180 Examiners -- Assignment of Examiners depends on the nature of the dispute, the availability of the Examiner (particularly important for URS proceedings considering its rapid nature), identity of the Parties, and nationality of the Parties (e.g. if an American trademark owner files a Complaint against a Chinese domain name holder, ADNDRC will not appoint an Examiner from either the US or China, but an Examiner with a neutral nationality). Assignment also depends on Examiners' independence and impartiality, their past experiences working with either URS Party, and the relevant legal background.
FORUM: 122 Examiners -- Rotation with 4 cases assigned at a time, with exceptions made for Examiner's availability and language considerations. MFSD: 23 Examiners -- Assignment of Examiners is based on a case by case analysis. Examiner's language skills (in accordance with the language of the Response) are the most important factor. Another consideration is the availability of the Examiner due to the strict time frame of the proceeding.
===
Examiner Q3: (To MFSD) What is your conflict of interest policy for Examiners? How do you make the Examiners aware of their obligation to be impartial and independent? Q4: (To MFSD) How do your Examiners confirm their impartiality and independence?
These two questions have been accepted by the WG and may cover Paul’s questions: 3. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n); and 4. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken.
In addition, Forum and ADNDRC’s Supplemental Rules may have already provided answers to these questions, hence the proposed questions are directed to MFSD:
Forum Supplemental Rules: 10. Impartiality and Independence (a) All FORUM Examiners will take an oath to be neutral and independent. (b) A Examiner will be disqualified if circumstances exist that create a conflict of interest or cause the Examiner to be unfair and biased, including but not limited to the following: (i) The Examiner has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts; (ii) The Examiner has served as an attorney to any party or the Examiner has been associated with an attorney who has represented a party during that association; (iii) The Examiner, individually or as a fiduciary, or the Examiner’s spouse or minor child residing in the Examiner’s household, has a direct financial interest in a matter before the Examiner; (iv) The Examiner or the Examiner’s spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (1) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a Party; or (2) Is acting as a lawyer or representative in the proceeding.
ADNDRC Supplemental Rules: Article 8. Impartiality and Independence of Examiner 1. The Examiner shall be and remain at all times wholly impartial and independent, and shall not act as advocate for any Party during the URS proceedings. 2. Prior to the appointment of any proposed Examiner, the Examiner shall declare in writing to the Parties and the Relevant Office of the Centre any circumstances which are likely to create an impression of bias or prevent a prompt resolution of the dispute between the Parties. If, at any stage during the URS proceeding, new circumstances arise that could give rise to justifiable doubt as to the impartiality or independence of the Examiner, the Examiner shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the Provider. In such event, the Provider shall have the discretion to appoint a substitute Examiner. 3. Except by consent of the Parties, no person shall serve as an Examiner in any dispute in which that person has any interest, which, if a Party knew of it, might lead him/her to think that the Examiner might be biased.
In accordance with ADNDRC Supplemental Rules, any appointed Examiner is required to disclose any ground giving rise to justifiable doubt of the independence/impartiality of an Examiner before the appointment, in writing to the Complaint intake ADNDRC office and the Parties.
Hope this helps!
Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:02 PM To: "Paul@law.es" <Paul@law.es>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers
Paul:
I can’t speak to the draft questions being prepared to Practitioners as I have had less involvement with that Sub-team, but I believe that the list of draft questions that will be going to Providers next week already covers these areas.
I’m hereby asking staff to provide us with the accepted or still under discussion questions that focus on the same areas as your suggested questions so that we can compare them and determine whether what we already have is sufficient . These are valid areas of inquiry but we don’t want to be asking providers what is essentially the same question twice.
Philip
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-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:09 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers
Julie and all,
First, my apologies for not responding yesterday but this was not received until after business hours in Barcelona.
I propose to add the following questions to BOTH the practitioners AND ADR questions. The questions are intended to understand the process of ensuring against bias and conflicts of interest in the context of URS proceedings.
To Providers:
1. Do you assign URS disputes to panelists on a random basis (y/n) 2. If no please briefly describe the process undertaken to select panelists in any given URS dispute 2. Do you take steps to ensure against bias or conflict of interest when selecting a panelist for any URS disputes (y.n) 3. If yes, please briefly explain the steps taken From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:32 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Redline Document: Proposed Questions to URS Providers
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 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (2)
-
Ariel Liang -
Paul Keating