Re: [gnso-sti] FW: URS Comment Re Appeal

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am ok with this.  Alan


> From: "Mark V. B. Partridge" <mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam
>         <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:15:55 -0500
> Subject: URS Comment Re Appeal
>
> 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 evidence.
> 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.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Mark Partridge