IOT Meeting #105 | 9 May 2023
- Brenda Brewer
Members: David McAuley, Greg Shatan, Kavouss Arasteh, Kristina Rosette, Sam Eisner, Scott Austin, Susan Payne
Guests/Observers: Kate Wallace, Liz Le
ICANN Org: Brenda Brewer
Apologies: Becky Burr, Flip Petillion, Bernard Turcotte, Malcolm Hutty
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to brenda.brewer@icann.org **
Agenda:
- Review agenda and updates to SOIs
- Review Action items:
- BT to circulate a Google Docs version of the a strawperson on “Rule 3 - Composition of the IRP Panel” – done: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qszAmJEZiQYYibn1KxOSp_1bNVjsg-Eo4fDUYQ6GhvA/edit?usp=sharing
- All to review and provide input (comments or suggestion mode, or via email list)
- Continued discussion of the Rule 3 strawperson
- Next Call 23 May 1900 UTC
Transcript: PDF
Recordings:
Documents: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qszAmJEZiQYYibn1KxOSp_1bNVjsg-Eo4fDUYQ6GhvA/edit?usp=sharing
Zoom Chat Transcript:
00:20:43 David McAuley (Verisign): none here
00:49:16 Kristina Rosette: It's possible I misunderstood them.
01:08:09 David McAuley (Verisign) (Observer): Fair enough, Kristina. Appreciate your viewpoint.
01:11:15 Kristina Rosette: Agree, Sam.
01:13:41 David McAuley (Verisign) (Observer): I think the confusion may stem from 'expertise' being used in 4.3(J)(I) and 'skill and experience' in 4.3(K)(ii)
01:14:11 David McAuley (Verisign) (Observer): 4.3(J)(i) - thanks autocorrect
01:22:08 Kristina Rosette: I don't disagree with that characterization, Susan, but I would note that we're missing two of our regular participants who are IRP practitioners.
01:23:54 Susan Payne: yes noted Kristina, so we will take this to the list
01:28:25 Scott Austin: We have an extra "to be" in 1 at the end of line 1
01:31:44 David McAuley (Verisign) (Observer): it's from 4.3(K)(ii) isn't it?
01:32:25 David McAuley (Verisign) (Observer): I think Kavouss is stating the challenge of 4.3(K)(ii)
01:34:57 David McAuley (Verisign) (Observer): I also agree w Greg and Kavouss on this point
01:36:07 Greg Shatan: Sorry I haven’t been in the Google doc. I would like to set this Strawman on fire.
01:39:43 David McAuley (Verisign) (Observer): The strawman filed its role of spurring vibrabnt discussion,. I submit the elegant solution to the mismatched verbiage between 4.3(J) and (K) is to have the ST. Pnl make a process and let them handle it - with 'skill' being read as 'expertise' and be done with this, and limit it as a litigation issue, a parenthetical one at that.
01:42:56 Scott Austin: +1 David and let me know if the google doc is still to be used going forward or has been sacrificed on the pillar of fiery debate.
01:43:01 Kristina Rosette: I appreciate your suggestion, David, but I have concerns about deferring entirely to Standing Panel.
01:44:02 Susan Payne: the google doc/strawman still exists
01:44:50 Scott Austin: +1 Kavous on Susan's effort
01:45:22 David McAuley (Verisign) (Observer): Thanks Susan and Brenda. Brenda - do you know when we will hear about timing of meeting at ICANN 77?
01:45:35 Greg Shatan: Capacity is the word used in Section (k)(ii). It’s fundamental to the whole situation.
01:46:07 Kristina Rosette: I recognize the concerns Greg states, but I believe there must be a mechanism for the Claimant or ICANN to raise the concern/complaint/contention (or whatever we want to call it) about lack of skill and experience. It must be a high hurdle for such a "complaint" to succeed. However, I think not having such a mechanism would make it easier for a party to prevail in subsequent litigation referenced by David.
01:46:41 Greg Shatan: If there is sufficient CAPACITY, we don’t go outside the Standing Panel. That’s the rule we already have.
01:47:55 Kristina Rosette: Thank you, all.
01:48:14 Scott Austin: I took it to mean capacity of time available due to it being followed by "other IRP commitments";