<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-sti] FW: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: RE: Appeal language]]
- To: "'GNSO STI'" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-sti] FW: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: RE: Appeal language]]
- From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 05:30:43 -0800
FYI-
From: Mark V. B. Partridge [mailto:mvbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 6:28 AM
To: gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx; Margie Milam; Kathy Kleiman
Cc: McGradyP@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: RE: Appeal language]]
Margie, looks like NSCG and IPC have agreement on language for 8.2. Please
post to list. Thanks. Mark
8.2 After a decision in any case, either party should have a right to seek a
de novo appeal based on the existing record within the URS process for a
reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal. The fees for an appeal should
be borne by the appellant. A limited right to introduce new admissible
evidence that is material to the decision will be allowed upon payment of an
additional fee, provided the evidence clearly pre-dates the filing of the
complaint. The Appeal Panel may request, in its sole discretion, further
statements or documents from either of the Parties.
***************************************************************************
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.
***************************************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|