Hi Elisa – happy to try to answer here, or to join a call. First, the “Tribunal” is the same in the arbitration setting as “Expert” is under the Objections processes (same function, different title). As a practical example, the idea is that the Provider should manage the process in a somewhat coordinated way to try to avoid conflicting results, e.g., as in the CAR/CARS instances in the 2012 round. So for example, if there were 2 separate String Confusion Objections filed at WIPO for STRINGX-party-A and STRINGY-party-B, and then STRINGX-party-A and STRINGY-party-C, some practical ways to try to avoid conflicting results could be to appoint the same Expert to decide both cases, or if that is not possible then to ensure that the Expert in the later case was at least aware of the decision in the earlier case (that way if the result was different, at least it would be done so on an informed basis and there would be an opportunity for the Expert to explain its reasoning (to the parties)). Hope that helps. Brian From: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 2:54 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Objections Hi Mike, Thanks so much for sharing Brian’s feedback. It would be very helpful to understand how the concept could apply to the objections process. For example, it sounds like the reference to “matters of form” and especially about the “enforceability of the award” wouldn’t deal with potentially conflicting results. It would be great to understand how this would work in practice. Also, we understand that the “Tribunal” would be the panel appointed to make a determination on the objection, but what about the Center/expert? Would that be the DRSP provider? Or ICANN? Many thanks, Elisa From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2024 at 20:19 To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>>, Brian Beckham <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Objections I share some feedback from Brian Beckham at WIPO, sent through our IPC list: On page 15, the concept of consolidation is mentioned. Many of you will also recall the conflicting results from some ICDR (AAA) determinations for String Confusion objections. There does not seem to have been any appeal process [domainincite.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/domainincite.com/15782-conflicting-gtld-o...> built in here (I do not recall if the IPC did, but the BC commented [icannbc.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-sta...> on that). While not covered by consolidation as such, the issue of potentially conflicting results seems to still be a possibility with this new AGB language. In Arbitration rules (e.g., WIPO’s here) there is often a clause along the following lines: “(e) The Tribunal may consult the Center with regard to matters of form, particularly to ensure the enforceability of the award.” It may be worth tying this concept together with the risk of conflicting results, e.g., to suggest that the expert consult with the provider who should inform the expert of the existence of any cases (published or pending) in which the same strings or concepts are in play. [Image removed by sender. Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law LLC email: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 4:15 AM Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, We have just posted the Objections draft language to the wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/RADyF> and the drive [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1z8aLhcE3W-7eA...>. We included the 2012 language in gray for reference. In addition, as you can see, there are some placeholders; for these sections, we will provide the draft language at a later stage. In the meeting today, we will continue discussing the proposed approach for Independent Objectors and go through the outline and the proposed language, if there is time. Best, Elisa _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.