ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-sti] FW: URS Comment Re Appeal

  • To: "'GNSO STI'" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-sti] FW: URS Comment Re Appeal
  • From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:59:32 -0800


From: Mark V. B. Partridge [mailto:mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 10:27 AM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Fwd: URS Comment Re Appeal

Please circulate this to the STI list.  For some reason I can't determine my 
messages to the list do not seem to get through.  Thanks.  Mark

The preceding message and any attachments may contain confidential information 
protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. You may not forward this 
message or any attachments without the permission of the sender. If you believe 
that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you 
received the message in error and then delete it. Nothing in this email 
message, including the typed name of the sender and/or this signature block, is 
intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to 
the contrary is included in the message.
--- Begin Message ---
  • To: "gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: URS Comment Re Appeal
  • From: "Mark V. B. Partridge" <mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:15:55 -0800
Dear All:

After review by IPC leadership, we recommend two points of clarification on the 
URS report.

First, with respect to de novo appeal, we suggest a clarifying amendment to 
avoid confusion and more accurately reflect the group's position.   Paul 
McGrady has separately submitted a proposed change of language on this point.  
See 8.2 in his revision.

The intended appeal involves de novo review of the record considered by the 
Examiner.  This means the Appeal panel reviews the existing evidence without 
any evidentiary or procedural deference to the initial Examiner.  This is in 
contrast to the appeal to an ombudsmen proposed by the IRT, which involved 
review for abuse of discretion.

The goal is to prevent gaming of the system by having a bad faith registrant 
create a temporary sham site and submit new evidence at the appeal stage.  Good 
faith registrants who answer late are protected because have a de novo hearing 
at the examiner stage and are able to submit evidence at that time.  Any 
resulting appeal, as in the case with U.S. Court appeals (and in most other 
jurisdictions) is based on the existing record without submission of additional 

Second, with respect to the time to answer, 5.1, there is only unanimous 
consent if the 20 day time to answer is linked to a prompt decision within 3 to 
5 days.  Please reflect this point in the report by adding the phrase and the 
end of the sentence in 5.1:

 "if decision is rendered in an expedited basis within 3 - 5 days)".

Otherwise, the IPC would not agree with the 20 day timing.


Mark Partridge

Mark V.B. Partridge
Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive - Suite 5000 - Chicago, IL  60606
T (312) 554-8000 Direct (312) 554-7922 F (312) 554-8015

Windows bitmap

--- End Message ---

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy