IOT Meeting #14 (9 February @ 19:00 UTC)
- Brenda Brewer
- Yvette Guigneaux
Sub-group Members: Alan Greenberg, Avri Doria, Becky Burr, David McAuley, Greg Shatan, Kavouss Arasteh, Liz Le, Malcolm Hutty, Robin Gross. (9)
Guests/Observers: Jay Sudowski (recommended to listen in by Steve DelBianco), Kate Wallace (from Jones Day Legal), Sarah Podmaniczky McGonigle (from Jones Day Legal). (3)
Staff: Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Mike Brennan (IT), Samantha Eisner, Trang Nguyen, Yvette Guigneaux
Apologies:
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
Agenda
1. Administrivia
2. Rapporteur report:
a. Letters sent;
b. Contact with ICANN staff.
3. Comments forum:
a. Process discussion - suggested ways to address comments:
i. Spreadsheet.
ii. Small groups?
iii. Lead member per comment?
iv. Lead member per topic
b. Substantive reviews:
i. Timing for filing claims.
c. Work on list.
4. Nature of IRP IOT – creation on Bylaw Section 4.3 not Section 27.1 – duration of IOT?
a. Need for help on rules suggested by standing panel?
b. Need for help on rules suggested by direct PTI customers?
c. Other ‘going forward’ needs
5. Plans for CCWG F2F presentation
6. AOB
Notes: (Including relevant portions of chat):
1. Administrivia
David McAuley: No audio only, no changes to SOIs. One observer Jay Sudowski - given there are no objections from the participants JS may observe only.
2. Rapporteur report:
a. Letters sent;
b. Contact with ICANN staff.
David McAuley: letters not out yet, few changes coming re Elise G suggestions. Re ICANN staff. Would ask SE to comment on current plans for the EOI re potential member of the panel.
Samantha Eisner: Working internally on this. Our timeframe to provide this to the IOT prior to Copenhagen. Looking forward to receiving input from IOT on this.
David McAuley: is there a need for an RFP for administrative support for IRP?
Samantha Eisner: we do not see a need for this at this point. This can be done at any time. When the rest of elements are lined up we can consider this. We will be asking the ICDR to review the updated supplementary rules to ensure they are not in conflict with the ICANN bylaws or beyond their capacity. We have been considering this internally and do not expect any issues but there is a need to verify.
Kavouss Arasteh: no problem with observers to listen only. combination of the letters - why combine?
David McAuley: am contemplating putting them together for efficiency
3. Comments forum:
a. Process discussion - suggested ways to address comments:
i. Spreadsheet.
ii. Small groups?
iii. Lead member per comment?
iv. Lead member per topic
Bernard Turcotte: Proposed process, the group could discuss the timing issues and assign the lesser issues to individuals to report to the group.
Malcolm Hutty: Bernard proposal: exactly as I would have suggested
avri doria: i think the more online tools are used the better. know it is not possible for all, but dealing with static docs is just a miserable way to go unless some one person is always in edit mode.
b. Substantive reviews:
i. Timing for filing claims. c. Work on list.
David McAuley: DM document ("Time for filing issues") Sidley has advised that as originally constructed there was an issue and suggested new text. Upon reading wondered if this was the solution. The Richard Hill seemed an interesting option of Facial vs AsApplied. If we pick a date from "being aware of material harm" we could resolve all issues?
Malcolm Hutty: Internally in Lynx there was significant concern how these timing recommendations come about given they have not been supported by our own external counsel. Our (IOT) approach seems to be wrong - we are open vs a moratorium but we need to be more formal and consistent consideration vs timing.
Samantha Eisner: I do not agree that there was any confirmation by Sidley that anything was proffered that was against ICANN's internal rules. The question that was posed to Sidley was whether the draft supplemental rules allowed for "facial invalidity", and they concurred with ICANN's position that the draft supplemental rules did not there was no statement from Sidley that the IOT or ICANN were violating the CCWG Proposal. Nonetheless, I agree with Malcolm that if we are to change the timing from what was posted in public comment, that needs to have a well-engaged conversation
Kavouss Arasteh: Are we talking about changing what timings?
David McAuley: Yes we are discussing changing the timing based on public comments. As to the comment by MH - the rules we proposed by the IOT and we were trying to balance several factors to allow for certainty. With respect to the institutional concern there is a simple solution we need to reconsider the 45 days. As to a moratorium, re Business Constituency, "knew of or should or reasonably known of" if there are significant changes we will have to go to public consultation again. We should cover this via a discussion on the list.
Greg Shatan: We need to take into account the Empowered Community processes and SO/AC processes.
Malcolm Hutty: We cannot pick a time arbitrarily - we need to look at what the requirements are - as long is as long as necessary to not undermine the process.
Greg Shatan: We arrived at 45 days trying to find balance and the possibility of finality. 45 days may of been too short - we need to consider comments and the Empowered Community timelines as well as SOAC timelines. The multistakeholder process is slow and messy and our timing should be in line with this. Agree we need to be analytical but we cannot leave everything open for ever.
Samantha Eisner: IRPs are not always going to be brought by the EC or by the community
Becky Burr: I thought the 45 days was in the Recommendation and the Bylaws
Malcolm Hutty: The standard itself by which we pick the period needs to be grounded in the bylaws. Merely "in our judgement, it sounds like a reasonable period" is not. (also to Greg: repose is not grounded in the bylaws)
Greg Shatan: The timeframe needs to be grounded in pragmatic realities.
Kavous Arasteh: We have discussed timing for a long time and came to a solution. Maybe we need to ask if our group supports longer than 45 days?
David McAuley: MH are you suggesting there should be no time limit.
Malcolm Hutty: There should be a limit but it should be on a rolling basis.
Greg Shatan: We need to look at the Sidley recommendations and the comments. Its premature to have this conversation without us having read the comments.
Kavouss Arasteh: not comfortable with no limit. 45 days seemed reasonable.
Malcolm Hutty: @Greg, I do agree on that, we should now look to the comments. This is discussion is merely introductory
Greg Shatan: @Malcolm, can you clarify what you mean by no fixed time, rolling basis?
Malcolm Hutty: What I meant was, it must be calculated relative to the time the harm crystallised, and knowledge appeared, not fixed relative to the action complained of
David McAuley: obviously, timing will be the big issue. MH and myself could pick this up (timing) to push this on list.
Malcolm Hutty: @David, I am very happy to volunteer, as you suggest/request
Greg Shatan: Isn't it now based on when the claimant becomes aware? Or is it the 12 month drop dead date you are referring to?
Malcolm Hutty: @greg I was referring to dropping the 12 month drop dead date
Greg Shatan: @Malcolm, thanks; got it.
Kavouss Arasteh: need to recommend things to the group.
Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly note that we should not drop the upper time limit at all
David McAuley: Next meeting 2 March 1300UTC.
Adjourned.
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Yvette Guigneaux: (2/9/2017 10:34) Welcome all to the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) Meeting #14 | Thursday, 09 February 2017 @ 19:00 UTC!
Yvette Guigneaux: (10:34) Please kindly use *6 (star 6) to mute & unmute phone
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:47) Hi Brenda, Hi Yevette, Thank you for your hard works
Yvette Guigneaux: (10:48) good day Kavous and thank you =)
Malcolm Hutty: (10:53) Hello everyone
Yvette Guigneaux: (10:54) Kavouss, dialing you in now
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:56) hello all
David McAuley: (10:58) Brenda, I am as usual 4154
Yvette Guigneaux: (10:58) hi David - copy that
David McAuley: (10:58) Thanks Yvette
Yvette Guigneaux: (10:59) yw
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:00) will start at 3 after the hour so more participants can join
David McAuley: (11:02) agre w Bernie - 3 minutes past hour and we will start and go from there
Greg Shatan: (11:06) Hello, all.
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:09) David I HAVE ASKED TO SPEA
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:09) Sorry, I HAVE RAISED HAND
Samantha Eisner: (11:10) got cut off
Samantha Eisner: (11:10) will dial in
David McAuley: (11:10) sorry Kanouss - missed it and
Greg Shatan: (11:10) Oh my.
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:10) Samantha are you still there?
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:10) NO AUDIO
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:10) perhaps a hold button was hit by accident?
avri doria: (11:10) not good. we lose Sam?
David McAuley: (11:10) I was bounced off audio -dialibng in
Jay Sudowski (BC): (11:10) Sounds like there is a fax machine connected to the line
avri doria: (11:11) its AC, of course we had an audio issue.
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:11) Daviod, Is there problem in identifying those raising hands
avri doria: (11:11) y
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:11) yes
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:11) a numbeer of people were cut off audio
Greg Shatan: (11:11) I can hear Sam as well.
Greg Shatan: (11:12) My phone line seems fine.
David McAuley: (11:12) i was bounced off call and am now back
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:12) NO souind
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:12) its the computer speakers, they echo
Greg Shatan: (11:12) That may be Sam's computer speakers...
David McAuley: (11:13) Kavouss coming to you next
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:13) There is no sound or completely disconnected
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:13) we will redial Kavouss
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:13) calling Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:15) David D O YOU SEE MY HAND RAISED
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:16) Dear Yevette, Does adobe functions properly I have raised hand since long time
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:17) Kavouss, apologies, we're having tech difficulties
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:17) several people were disconnected
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:17) i am getting IT on the call right now
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:17) apologies all
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:17) We have been having technical issues today
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:17) apologies
Samantha Eisner: (11:21) sounded right. Thanks, David
Malcolm Hutty: (11:24) Bernard proposal: exactly as I would have suggested
avri doria: (11:25) i think the more online tools are used the better. know it is not possible for all, but dealing with static docs is just a miserable way to go unless some one person is alwasy in edit mode.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:25) will do
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:26) Avri+1
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:26) I can also build a form
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:27) in Google docs
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:27) did you want anything displayed David?
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:27) yw
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:27) scrolling available if needed
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:28) Berni, May you send me in other form as I have had problem with goog
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:28) will send you a word version Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:28) Still I have that problem
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:28) If you pick a topic
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:31) time check 30 minutes left
Samantha Eisner: (11:33) I do not agree that there was any confirmation by Sidley that anything was proffered that was against ICANN's internal rules
Samantha Eisner: (11:34) The question that was posed to Sidley was whether the draft supplemental rules allowed for "facial invalidity", and they concurred with ICANN's position that the draft supplemental rules did not
Samantha Eisner: (11:35) there was no statement from Sidley that the IOT or ICANN were violating the CCWG Proposal
Samantha Eisner: (11:36) Nonetheless, I agree with Malcolm that if we are to change the timing from what was posted in public comment, that needs to have a well-engaged conversation
Becky Burr: (11:37) Sorry to join late and hello
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:38) Timing for comments were different for different cases depending on the case by case
Greg Shatan: (11:40) We need to take into account the Empowered Community processes and SO/AC processes.
Samantha Eisner: (11:46) IRPs are not always going to be brought by the EC
Samantha Eisner: (11:46) or by the community
Becky Burr: (11:46) I thought the 45 days was in the Recommendation and the Bylaws
Malcolm Hutty: (11:47) The standard itself by which we pick the period needs to be grounded in the bylaws. Merely "in our judgement, it sounds like a reasonable period" is not
Malcolm Hutty: (11:47) (also to Greg: repose is not grounded in the bylaws)
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:48) time check 10 minutes left
Greg Shatan: (11:48) The timeframe needs to be grounded in pragmatic realities.
Greg Shatan: (11:49) I think our main job now is to look at the comments, rather than ourselves.
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:50) Time Check - 10 minutes
Malcolm Hutty: (11:51) @Greg, I do agree on that, we should now look to the comments. This is discussion is merely introductory
Greg Shatan: (11:52) @Malcolm, can you clarify what you mean by no fixed time, rolling basis?
Malcolm Hutty: (11:53) What I meant was, it must be calculated relative to the time the harm crystalised, and knowledged appeared, not fixed relative to the action complained of
Malcolm Hutty: (11:53) @David, I am very happy to volunteer, as you suggest/request
Greg Shatan: (11:54) Isn't it now bsed on when the claimant becomes aware? Or is it the 12 month drop[ dead date you are referring to?
Malcolm Hutty: (11:54) @greg I was referring to dropping the 12 month drop dead date
Greg Shatan: (11:54) @Malcolm, thanks; got it.
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:55) wE COULD NOT DROP 12 MONTHS AT ALL .wE MAY SLIGHTLY REDUCED THAT, IF ALL AGREE
Yvette Guigneaux: (11:55) Time Check - 5 minutes
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:56) Pls kindly note that we should not drop the upper time limit at all
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:58) DAVID, PLS KINDLY TAKE MY COMMENT INTO ACCOUNT
David McAuley: (11:58) will do Kavouss, thank you -
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:59) March 2nd 1300 utc confirmed.
Jay Sudowski (Laptop): (12:00) Thanks for letting me observe
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:00) bye all