RE: [gnso-sti] URS Strawman Proposal 111109.xls

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Wendy's comment is actually consistent with the IRT Report (although 
others can correct me).  The only caveat is that I believe there needs to be 
some credbile evidence to support the contestable issue  (as opposed to a mere 
allegation that a contestable issue exists).

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Wendy Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:52 AM
To: Kurt Pritz
Cc: Jonathon Nevett; GNSO STI
Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] URS Strawman Proposal 111109.xls


Thanks Kurt,

One quick response:

> No genuine issue of material fact -- similar to Rule 56 of U.S. Fed. Rule of 
> Civil Procedure.
> Staff comment: this is workable, we think the clear and convincing standard 
> is better. The strawman burden seems equivalent to the summary judgment 
> burden – which can be defeated by essentially any evidence, where the clear 
> and convincing burden, while high, enables some balancing on the part of the 
> panelist.

I think a high burden and clear standard, leaving the examiners little
discretion, are critical to keeping a rapid and inexpensive URS fair.
Hence I'd argue that "any evidence defeats a complaint" is appropriate.
 On a showing of any contestable issue, the matter should be kicked over
to UDRP.

--Wendy

Kurt Pritz wrote:
> David, John and team:
> 
> I hope you find the attached staff comments on the URS Strawman useful and 
> not intrusive. We will be available to answer questions on the call.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kurt
> 
> 
> On 11/11/09 8:00 AM, "Jonathon Nevett" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> STI Team:
> 
> Attached is an attempt at a strawman proposal on the key URS issues raised at 
> our meetings.  Not everyone will agree with every tenet of the compromise, 
> but it is an attempt to do just that  . . . reach a compromise.  In some 
> instances, principles are proposed, but details are left to staff to 
> implement.  This is appropriate for a number of reasons, not the least of 
> which is our timing.
> 
> Thanks to Zahid and Kathy and the others who paved the way with the consensus 
> document.  Also, thanks to Margie who -- per yesterday's conversation -- 
> helped prepare parts of the chart.
> 
> Finally, I offer this up neither as a representative of the Registrar 
> Stakeholder Group nor of Network Solutions.
> 
> I very much look forward to continuing the discussions with the team on these 
> issues.  I hope that we can reach consensus and improve upon the ICANN 
> proposals.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Jon
> 
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
phone: +1.914.374.0613
Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/