Re: [gnso-sti] FW: URS Comment Re Appeal
- To: "'GNSO STI'" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] FW: URS Comment Re Appeal
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:19:13 -0500
I am ok with this. Alan
From: "Mark V. B. Partridge" <mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:15:55 -0500
Subject: URS Comment Re Appeal
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
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.