WP2 Meeting #10 (22 July)

Transcript

• Transcript WP2 Meeting #10_22 July.docx
• Transcript WP2 Meeting #10_22 July.pdf

Recording

• Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8pen2bdrad/
• MP3 recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp2-22jul15-en.mp3

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 

- Purpose of the call is IRP

KA - IRP as proposed could interfere with the GAC advice to the Board.

BB - This is a difficult issue.. Getting this right is going to be complicated - they have to be right. Deliverables for WS1 for IRP would be the rules plus a plan 
for implementation. The implementation committee should be a subset of the CCWG and should be augmented by international constitutional law experts..

DM - Supports. Replace constitutional with governance.

GS - Issue with the use of constitutional in this context.

BB - Has no issue removing this term.

GS - would suppor this.

BB - This is IRP+ - where the plus relates to the member's rights.

GS - why do we need international legal experts?

DM - Standard should be uniformly stated. Stat rights of the sole member should mesh with the Bylaws.

BB - good point - we will refer tot he rights of the sole member as described in the Bylaws

AD - International is critical - Bylaws have to be interpreted with an international perspective.

BB - Good point

BB - section 2 Standing - Should this state that ICANN by contract should not use a contract to deprive anyone of its rights.

KA - Issue vs the term take advantage of for GAC.

BB - this is not derogatory

DM - by contract not deprive a party to go to IRP

Both parties going to IRP should sign a document saying they will abide by the results and not go to courts.

EM - same, supports.

BB - KA is the take advantage issue ok now.

BB - RPG concern regarding standing, BB believes this should be ok.

BB - Selection process - issue around Board participation, need to be distinct from standard inner nation arbitration.

BB - In Paris discussed for selecting a firm for administrative support to find candidates. Specialized head hunting firm internationally that would work with the community to get applications. The community would select the candidates + and overflow pool. this could be an early part of WP2. The proposed candidates would go to the Board which could object for specific reasons.

DM - Judicial headhunter - Some legal experience is good but non lawyers can make good arbitrators. Worries that the panel will only be lawyers. Would like wider consideration.

BB - the first report mentioned panelists who have legal expt. + additional areas. There are people who have helped set up courts which we will need. to avoid making mistakes. Does not disagree that some panelists who could not be lawyers but it would seem logical for lawyers.

Matthew Shears: I agree with David's point that the skill set should be broadened and having individuals with arbitration skills would be useful

BB- should we change the defn for panelist that is in place since the beginning..

GS - include arbitration.

BB - Selection process is ok,

BB - Diversity is an issue - some have suggested in the PC that there should not be more than 2 pann. from one region.

DM - Small group therefore easy to fill it from all regions and as such is sensible.

GS - Hard limit is worrisome. Diversity has to be secondary to skill set., qualifications has to be first.

EM - Support GS - Concerned about legal system diversity.

BB - Hearing reasonable efforts + a soft Goal of not more than 2 from the same region.

BB - 7 member standing panel. ICANN raised questions regarding capacity or limits. BB mentioned possibility of an overflow pool that would be prevetted panelists that would only be paid if called upon. All ok with this? No objections.

BB - KA about the GAC concerns. BB reminds that IRP ruling will not determine how to fix a violation. This opens an opportunity for discussion between the parties..

BB - USG has noted that there should be a test period.

GS - Decisions o IRP cannot indicate how to amend?

does not seem appropriate to limit the panel in this way.

BB - not just yes or no, the rationale to support this is part of the record.

BB - KA notes the GAC has established a wg on this topic. Open to working with them. This being said the community is strongly in favour of Binding.

Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: DK has said, that “The new mechanisms must ensure that the Board is bound to follow the ruling of the IRP”

DM - US idea of testing is good just uncertain how that would work. Binding is good.

GS - Binding issue has broad support - it can be appealed to the full panel and how that is done.. Recourse in the courts has to be clarified.

BB - There is a possibility of appeal. BB notes that KA does not want to be a hostage of a California court.. Plaintiff winning IRP could go to court to get it 

BB - Terms,independence from ICANN pre and post.

DM - 2 years pre and post. Term 3 years? Does it need a review to ensure it sticks to what it should be doing.

BB - Good point and related to the USG requirement for a test period. BB prefers 4 years with staggered terms.

DM 4 years is goo

BB 4/2 is good.

KA - IRP request on same topic of an ongoing IRP request.

BB -consolidation is important. Doing both could lead to diverse decisions.. other 4 parties should be able to join ongoing process - this is for the implementation group.

BB - Settlement can involve formal mediation.

BB - Decision already covered.

BB - binding

David McAuley: Will a 1 member, non-binding panel be available if parties elect?

Becky Burr: yes David

arasteh: But one member panel shall not be binding

EM - does not like CEP

BB - some really like it

EM - it is opaque to all including affected parties.needs to be more transparent.

BB - Good idea for for WS2

GS - CEP has not been reviewed - we may want to do this. CEP as a real mediation service would be very good. Many comments that the experience of the CEP was not good. 
CEP review should be done in WS2.

BB - Good suggestion

BB - Subgroup for impl. details. WS1 just needs the Bylaws language.

BB - Binding vs non-Binding and what to do about real BONEHEAD decisions?  Reviews.

DM - Narrow community power to say THIS DECISION MAKES no sense. Panels once in a while come out with CLUNKERS.

BB - Revise and expand this as pe3r this discussion to create the report. I will do this anc circulate.

BB - there are a lot of details that have to be completed. Implementation sub-group is going to be a big group.

KA - support this approach

KA - Repeats GAC issue vs Binding

BB - Is the issue already addressed with IRP decision not specifying how ICANN hs to address or implement? and the GAC could provide advice to ICANN on how to implement 
or address the binding request.

GS - IRP should be able to challenge GAC backed advice to a Board decision.

BB - I hink its not about it being binding or not - if a decision comes down the GAC wants to be able to enter in the consultation..

BB - Scenario - GAC provides advice to Board, refused, there is consultation and an agreement is reached. Someone could claim that decision violates the 
Bylaws and goes to IRP. The panel could say the plaintiff is correct and the decision violates the bylaws. There is nothing that prevent the GAC from submitting 
further advice to the Board on this and then there could be further negotiations.

KA - yes but the Board would need to continue consultation with the GAC.

BB - this is very workable. Thew IRP judgement should not block further negotiations between the Board and the GAC.

end of meeting

Documents

Constitutional Court charged.pdf

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (7/22/2015 05:23) Welcome to WP2 Meeting #10 on 22 July at 11:00 UTC!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 

  Brenda Brewer: (05:52) Hi Becky!

  Becky Burr: (05:53) hi brenda - i just sent a different doc that i'd like to work from

  Brenda Brewer: (05:55) I will upload that doc.  Thanks!

  Brenda Brewer: (05:56) Kavouss is on the audio line now.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (05:57) hello all

  David McAuley: (06:00) Good morning all

  Becky Burr: (06:00) hello all - we'll wait a minute or two for others to join

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:10) Please mute you mikes

  Greg Shatan: (06:14) Good point, David.

  David McAuley: (06:16) Thanks Greg, abd I agree w/Avri re international skills in looking at this

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:16) Just t be lcear trhe CWG has formally requested that IRP not apply to ccTLDs

  David McAuley: (06:16) old

  David McAuley: (06:16) sorry, didgy mute button

  David McAuley: (06:16) dodgy, that is

  Greg Shatan: (06:17) Bernie, that was just for delegation/redelegation issues, not generally....

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:18) @Greg - correct

  Avri Doria: (06:18) apologies for being late, was giving a presentation up until the hour.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:19) But for ccTLDs that actually covers a majority

  Greg Shatan: (06:19) "take advantage of" just means "use".

  Greg Shatan: (06:20) Nothing more.

  Avri Doria: (06:20) not necessarily, but perhaps creative ambiguity ...

  Greg Shatan: (06:20) In this case, nothing more.

  Greg Shatan: (06:20) If I take advantage of you - yes.

  Greg Shatan: (06:20) If I take advantage of a pitcher of water - no.

  Rafael Pérez Galindo: (06:21) Hi ALl

  Rafael Pérez Galindo: (06:21) My mike not functioning

  Rafael Pérez Galindo: (06:22) Something that raises concerns for us

  Rafael Pérez Galindo: (06:22) The fact that only already “materially affected” parties have a standing in the IRP could prevent stakeholders from using the IRP in case that damage or harm has not been produced yet.The aforementioned rule can prevent governments from filing an IRP. In circumstances where an action or inaction by ICANN affects compliance with local laws, governments should be able to challenge ICANN decisions through an IRP. The government as such is not materially harmed and will never be, but they have a duty to preserve the applicability of their national laws and should have the chance of doing so through the IRP.Hence, we propose to expand the scope of legitimacy to file an IRP to a “prospectively affected” party which demonstrates that severe harm will likely be done to the interests it defends, although this damage is not suffered yet.

  Rafael Pérez Galindo: (06:22) Sorry for the long post ....

  Matthew Shears: (06:29) I agree with David's point that the skill set should be broadened and having individuals with arbitation skills would be useful

  Greg Shatan: (06:30) It may be a given, but it should still be stated.

  Matthew Shears: (06:30) +1 Greg

  David McAuley: (06:30) So not much support, suggest we move on

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:32) some regions are pretty big...

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:33) we could have big delays associated with a hard quota. Perhaps a time box to acheive diversity?

  Matthew Shears: (06:33) While diversity is important I would support reasonable effort approach - skill set is key

  arasteh: (06:34) Beckie

  David McAuley: (06:34) Reasonable efforts seems fine, on other hand I doubbt we will have any difficulty meeting regional diversity in this matter

  arasteh: (06:35) We ned to ensure that the rights og GAC and the obligation of ICANN to process GAC ADVICE ARE RECOGNIZED AND CONFIRMED

  arasteh: (06:35) mOREOVER, THE OBLIGATUION OF bOARD TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATION WITH gac IN CASE OF REJECTION OF ITS ADVICE MUST BE MAINTAINED

  Greg Shatan: (06:37) How do you define GAC Advice?

  arasteh: (06:37) tHE USE OF irp FOR SUCH ADVICE IS SUBJECT TO DECISION OF gac AND BINDING ISSUE SHOULD NOT GET INTO A SITUATION IN WHICH THE OBLIGATION OF THE bOARD TO NEGOTIATE WITH gac TO FIND A SATISFACTORY SOLUTION SHOULD BNOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY irp

  arasteh: (06:37) Pls confirm that

  David McAuley: (06:37) pre-vetted is fine

  Matthew Shears: (06:37) agree

  Matthew Shears: (06:39) how many of the pre-vetted 7 are in the standing committee - and how are the 3 panellists be chosen from the 7?

  Matthew Shears: (06:39) sorry standing panel

  Becky Burr: (06:41) 7 are the standing panel.  one member chosen by each party, those 2 select the 3rd.  Pre-vetted pool could be larger

  arasteh: (06:41) GAC HAS ESTABLISHED A WORKING gROUP TO EXAMINE THE CASE THA i raised and I AM SURE THEYS WILL COME BACK TO ccwg soon

  arasteh: (06:41) Grace

  arasteh: (06:42) pls advise whwether therte is any GAC REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CALL

  Matthew Shears: (06:42) thanks Becky - is that written in more detail somewhere or does it need to be captured here?

  arasteh: (06:42) i see they are quiet and silent which is surprising

  Becky Burr: (06:42) i will capture here

  arasteh: (06:43) Is Olga Cavali in the call pls?V

  Brenda Brewer: (06:44) Olga is not on this call.

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (06:44) DK has said, that “The new mechanisms must ensure that the Board is bound to follow the ruling of the IRP”

  arasteh: (06:44) Beckie

  arasteh: (06:45)  May you pls adise whether Board can invoke IRP?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:45) pretty broad support for binding

  arasteh: (06:46) irp IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND THUS THE LATTER CAN NOT REPLACE THE FORMER.

  Becky Burr: (06:46) who would the Board invoke IRP against?  The question is whether or not ICANN violated its bylaws.  if it is staff action in question, the Board can handle that more directly

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:46) +1 Becky

  David McAuley: (06:46) Good point Becky

  arasteh: (06:47) uNFORTUNATELY ONE bOARD mMEMBER DURING THE gac 53 MENTIONED THAT dISPUTE rESOLUTION COULD PROPERLY ADDRESS AND REPLACE irp PROCESS TO WHICH i DISAGREE

  arasteh: (06:48) WHAT WE DO NOT WANT IS TO BE HOSTAGE OF cALIFORIAN court

  David McAuley: (06:49) And that court, Becky, need not be in California would it - could be any court w jurisdiction over icann

  arasteh: (06:49) Dear Grtace,

  Greg Shatan: (06:50) Even in the US, we would  almost certainly be in a US federal court, not a California State court.

  arasteh: (06:50) Pls kindly advise whether any of 5 GAC member to CCWG ARE ATTENDING THIS CALL

  arasteh: (06:52) Pls kindly advise whether any of 5 GAC member to CCWG ARE ATTENDING THIS CALL`Iwish to be clear that I have no issue agaist Californian Court .$

  arasteh: (06:52) What I wish to say the any court could be elected or used and not neceessirily a Cafornian Court$

  Greg Shatan: (06:53) No more than 2 years post-term.

  Greg Shatan: (06:54) There should be a periodic review of the IRP function.

  David McAuley: (06:54) 4 years would work

  Matthew Shears: (06:54) + 1 Greg and David

  David McAuley: (06:54) 4 years for term that is

  David McAuley: (06:54) i like 4/2

  arasteh: (06:54) During the Paris  meeting I raised the question about the criteria that an IRP could be invoked and no IRP could be invoked on any issue which is peding by a previous inokation of an IRP

  Greg Shatan: (06:54) 2 years was for post-term "independence."

  arasteh: (06:56) IRP is a complex process and could take a long  time to be processed

  Becky Burr: (06:56) correct greg

  arasteh: (06:56) Thus its invocation must follow certain pre determined criteria

  David McAuley: (06:57) Maybe these kinds of questions are for the sub-group but it is a good question

  David McAuley: (06:57) questions re consolidation that is

  arasteh: (06:58) Dearv Beckie

  arasteh: (06:58)  could you pls reply to my question

  David McAuley: (06:59) Will a 1 member, non-binding panel be available if parties elect?

  Becky Burr: (06:59) yes David

  arasteh: (06:59) But one member panel shall not be binding

  David McAuley: (06:59) thanks Becky

  Becky Burr: (07:00) I think we did respond Kavouss - we think it is a very good question to be addressed by subgroup

  arasteh: (07:01) To whom the Member of IRP are accountable?

  Becky Burr: (07:02) to the community and to the board.  just as any judiciary is accountable to a legislature and/or the executive branch

  David McAuley: (07:03) and community periodic review adds to IRP accountability as well

  Edward Morris: (07:03) + 1 Greg

  Becky Burr: (07:03) one member panel is not binding

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:04) more like a trashcan with a "complaints" sign on it

  David McAuley: (07:04) good one Jonathan

  arasteh: (07:05) bECKIE

  David McAuley: (07:05) and procedural details as well

  arasteh: (07:06) Several existing arrangement may not be compatible with what we are discussing

  Becky Burr: (07:08) not sure i understand what you are referring to Kavouss

  David McAuley: (07:11) OK, well said Becky

  David McAuley: (07:13) agreed

  David McAuley: (07:15) I doubt this would happen, but if GAC and ICANN negotiate a solution that vilates bylaws to detriment of a party that party can invoke IRP

  David McAuley: (07:15) violates, that is

  Becky Burr: (07:16) correct, David

  Greg Shatan: (07:17) If the Board makes a decision as a result of GAC advice (with or without a consultation), that decision can be challenged through an IRP now.  That can't change.

  Greg Shatan: (07:19) IRP can only challenge a Board decision.

  David McAuley: (07:19) As restated by Kavouss, I agree IRP cannot block GAC and ICANN from negotiating over rejected consensus advice

  Greg Shatan: (07:20) The consultation process itself is not within reach of the IRP.

  David McAuley: (07:20) +1 Greg, better stated

  Greg Shatan: (07:20) David,  I thought yours was better stated, so a combination of the two might be even better.

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:21) GAC and the Board cannot agree on matter outside the Bylaws

  David McAuley: (07:21) agreed, +2

  David McAuley: (07:22) Good point @Finn, but I worry a bit about instances where issue is not all that clear

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (07:23) @David - that we have the IRP

  Greg Shatan: (07:23) Of course they can.  They may think they are not doing so, but the IRP may prove them wrong.

  Greg Shatan: (07:24) I expect that the Board NEVER thinks they are violating the Bylaws.

  David McAuley: (07:24) Agreed @Finn, thank you. Good discussion.

  Greg Shatan: (07:24) Usually they are right.  But clearly not always.

  David McAuley: (07:25) WP2 next call is 27th, right

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:26) The road to hell is paved with the intention not to violate the bylaws...

  Matthew Shears: (07:26) ;)

  Brenda Brewer: (07:26) Next WP2 Meeting – Monday 27 July 2015 from 13:00 – 14:30 UTC

  David McAuley: (07:26) thanks Brenda

  Brenda Brewer: (07:27) :)

  David McAuley: (07:27) good phrase Kavouss

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:27) +1 Kavouss

  Matthew Shears: (07:27) thanks Becky, all

  David McAuley: (07:27) Many thanks Becky

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:27) Thanks!

  Edward Morris: (07:27) Thanks very much Becky and everyone.

  Greg Shatan: (07:27) Bye, all.