IOT Meeting #110 | 08 August 2023
- Brenda Brewer
Members: David McAuley, Flip Petillion, Kristina Rosette, Malcolm Hutty, Susan Payne
Guests/Observers: Becky Burr, Kate Wallace, Liz Le
ICANN Org: Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer
Apologies:
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to brenda.brewer@icann.org **
Agenda:
- Review agenda and updates to SOIs
- Action items:
- BT to circulate text of the ICDR rule on consolidation
- Done: Art 8 Consolidation (page 18)
- All to review, with particular regard to the consolidation process and role of the consolidation arbitrator and come to the meeting ready to discuss
- BT to circulate text of the ICDR rule on consolidation
- Discussion on the ICDR process for consolidation
- Continue review and discussion of other elements of the small team’s proposed revision to Rule 7, to the extent not addressed by the above
- AOB
- Next call 15 August 1800 UTC
Transcript: PDF
Recordings:
Documents:
Zoom Chat Transcript:
13:04:42 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
I can make it
13:05:46 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
I can’t sorry - mentioned it in the chat at the previous call
13:13:45 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
am I correct, Flip, that you believe a single arbitrator makes better sense to decide consolidation question based on your experience?
13:16:17 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
Hi David; question is whether the single arbitrator would be ‘inactive’ in the pending cases or ‘the first’ to be appointed. The inactive ones may have a more neutral view
13:16:42 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
thank you, Flip
13:22:53 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
We could but a neutral would be preferable, I’d say
13:25:33 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
Thanks, Susan, bad memory on my part
13:26:39 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
First appointed panel, thanks Flip
13:28:31 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
so if the first panel denies consolidation then that ends the matter. I wonder if we should state that to be clear
13:36:00 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
Sounds to me that the consolidation arbitrator path may address 2 concerns - neutrality and the possibility that the first-to-commence IRP does not yet have a Standing Panel in place. So, I would support it. Perhaps with asterisk that notes the original proposal?
13:38:01 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
that too is interesting and useful input Flip
13:40:42 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
would that be a function of time or decisions made, Kristina?
13:41:24 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
Thank you. I thought we'd addressed it, but couldn't recall.
13:41:35 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
David - what is "that"?
13:41:54 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
the time after which no consolidation would be available.
13:43:40 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
We could do it both ways, David. I'm inclined to prefer a function of time b/c, at a certain point, it wouldn't be fair to the first-filed complainant to allow consolidation.
13:43:58 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
thanks
13:44:48 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
In theory, under our proposal, the later filer - who is seeking consolidation - could have filed its IRP 6 months after the earlier filed proceeding. So, 21 or 28 days from publication of the later filed one would be as much as 7 months after the first proceeding was initiated.
13:45:03 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
Yes, but what if the first acts very quickly to avoid consolidation ?
13:46:02 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
I can imagine Susan
13:46:41 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
He is
13:46:48 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
me also - very challenging, especially as one panle will rule first if they remain separate and that then raises the issue of precedent.
13:47:44 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
Flip - do you mean the first Panel or the first complainant? If complainant, I don't believe the complainant has enough control over the proceeding's pace for that to happen. If Panel, I don't believe the Panel could move so quickly (while staying within the rules) to avoid consolidation.
13:48:06 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
I'm sufficiently neutral. I can support the small group's proposal. I was on that group, after all. :-)
13:48:49 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
I C your point Kristina
13:49:03 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
I support the small group’s proposal as well
13:54:00 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
I agree w Susan - 9.1 of ICDR seems less preferable to me than 7.5 in right column
13:54:36 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
Prefer small group proposal, here.
13:59:11 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
i also agree w Susan here
14:00:59 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
Support comparable language (w/r/t stay)
14:03:56 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
fair enough as to those moving for consolidation
14:04:54 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
Excellent point. Let me rephrase - only the parties in the non-moving proceeding should be able to object to a stay while consolidation is being considered.
14:05:40 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
+1
14:09:21 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
I opt for small team approach
14:12:32 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
+ 1 Kristina, a 'brief' statement of reasons
14:13:29 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
Thank you for side-by-side doc, Susan
14:13:50 From Malcolm Hutty To Everyone:
Christina's comment suggests an interesting if tangential point: do we state clearly anywhere that decisions on these procedural matters are not intended to set a precedent?
14:14:32 From Malcolm Hutty To Everyone:
"Kristina", apologies
14:16:17 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
180 days? Not realistic
14:17:17 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
@Flip - I'm not saying 180 days is realistic. I'm using it to try to come up with a deadline by which any request for consolidation would automatically be untimely.
14:17:34 From Becky Burr To Everyone:
Should be a very high bar to late consolidation
14:17:58 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
I understand - but want to state it that 180 is really not reaslistic
14:18:05 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
60 days from the date of commencement of the latest filed of those proceedings to be considered for consolidation.
14:18:17 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
+ 1 Becky re high bar
14:18:27 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
never mind. that's wrong. we have that time limit, which Susan just said.
14:19:03 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
OK< thanks Susan
14:19:25 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
I'm sticking with the clock to run from the first filed proceedings' commencement.
14:19:47 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
I can live with a high bar after 60 days.
14:20:19 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
My last one : near to 3 years !
14:24:40 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
I agree with you, Susan re notification. ICANN may put out annual or otherwise reminder that IRPs are published at a certain page
14:25:24 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
There is a page now - updates should be more accurate and we solve this problem
14:26:12 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
Thanks Susan and all
14:26:31 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
Yes, thanks Susan and colleagues
14:27:32 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
I will not join sorry
14:27:44 From David McAuley (Verisign) To Everyone:
can join if we have mtg
14:27:57 From Kristina Rosette To Everyone:
Thanks, all. Have a good week. I plan to be on next week, but would love the time back if we're not going to have quorum.
14:28:22 From Bernard Turcotte To Everyone:
bye all
14:28:32 From Flip Petillion To Everyone:
bye