ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< 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


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 >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy