/
IOT Meeting #23 (25 May 2017 @ 19:00 UTC)

IOT Meeting #23 (25 May 2017 @ 19:00 UTC)

Owned by Brenda Brewer
Last updated: May 30, 2017

Attendees: 

Sub-group Members:   Avri Doria, David McAuley, Elizabeth Le, Greg Shatan, Kavouss Arasteh, Malcolm Hutty, Robin Gross.

Staff:  Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Samantha Eisner, Yvette Guigneaux. 

Apologies:  

** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **

Transcript

Recording

Agenda

1.    Admin/Attendance/SOI

2.    Status of sign-up sheet;

3.    Status of Staff Report Date (currently still showing May 29 (which is itself a revised date))

4.    Status/Update (if any) of ICANN Legal/Policy teams with respect to SO/AC education re: IRP roles and charting out process timeframe; 

5.    Status/update of timing issue

6.    First reading on certain issues as per David’s email of May 19th:

a.   Retroactivity:

               i.  Rules;

              ii.  Substantive standard.

b.   Standing (Materially Affected)’

c.    Panel Conflict of Interest.

7.    Challenges to Consensus policy;

8.    Begin discussion on “Discovery, evidence, statements” – I will be unable to send thoughts to list but will be prepared to begin the discussion.

9.    Explanation/discussion of the process after we conclude this phase 

10.  AOB

Raw Caption Notes*
*Note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call

Decisions:

  • Report on public comments due 29 May. Given the deadline cannot be met staff will draft an interim note explaining the situation for DM.
  • Timing issues (45 days and Repose) – MH proposal accepted as a first reading. This will be published to the list and be scheduled for a second reading at the next IOT meeting.
  • Retroactivity issue – DM proposal accepted as a first reading. This will be published to the list and be scheduled for a second reading at the next IOT meeting.

Action Items:

  • Staff – Prepare an interim note re public comment for review by DM given we will not meet the 29 May deadline.
  • MH – Publish timing issue proposal to list advising that the second reading will be at the next IOT meeting.
  • DM – Publish Retroactivity issue proposal to list advising that the second reading will be at the next IOT meeting.

Requests:

  • Participants – Sign up for analyzing a public comment issues.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Yvette Guigneaux:Welcome all to the IRP - IOT Meeting #23  |  25 May 2017 @ 19:00 UTC!

  Yvette Guigneaux:If you are not speaking, please mute your phone by pressing *6 (star 6).  To unmute press *6.  This call is recorded.Reminder to all, please state your name before speaking for the Captioner.  

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Hello all

  David McAuley:4154 is my number

  Yvette Guigneaux:Hi David - got it, thank you

  David McAuley:I will come on phone at top of hour - we will probably wait till 2 past then

  David McAuley:hi Avri - will start in a min

  David McAuley:hi Robin - same - start soon

  avri doria:ok, thanks

  Robin Gross:thanks

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:great suggestion

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Greg

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:here you go - the magic of staff

  Robin Gross:Thanks for the work on this issue, I agree with the proposal to extend the timing

  Greg Shatan:I think Sam is raising a subject matter jurisdiction question.  The scope of the IRP will be the same on day 1 or day 1000.

  David McAuley:I think Sam is making a relevant and fair point Greg, so I guess I don't agree to some extent

  Greg Shatan:Remedies need not be redress or relief for a particular entity.

  David McAuley:I think colloqually that is how they are understood

  Greg Shatan:David, how do you see Sam's issue as one of timing and not one of what the IRP is competent to hear at any time?

  David McAuley:Sam was, I think, responding to the wrong without remedy comment

  Samantha Eisner:@Greg, I was discussing the broader issue.  But if it's being tied to remedies of harm to individuals whenever they might be harmed, it might not fit that purpose

  Greg Shatan:I agree that the IRP is not intended to be a forum for every wrong.  But that's not a timing issue.

  Robin Gross:I don't think creating a remedy and providing accountability are mutually exclusive concepts.  They are both.

  Samantha Eisner:Thanks David

  Greg Shatan:@Sam, I was not referring solely to redress/relief to the party at issue. However, I think it's likely that the claimant will have some benefit from a decision in their favor.

  Samantha Eisner:@Malcolm, the harm is that there is an allowance for ICANN to continue to act in violation of the Bylaws for an indeterminate period of time

  Samantha Eisner:There's an element of accountability to the ICANN community - if ICANN was acting outside of Bylaws, that should be flagged as quickly as possible

  Greg Shatan:It may not be clear that ICANN was acting outside the Bylaws until some later action is taken.

  Robin Gross:Sorry I don't have audio today.

  Greg Shatan:If it is clear to the Claimant, then the rule in front of us takes care of that.

  avri doria:I am fine wih the proposal, in general i favor longer timings.

  avri doria:why would longer timings mean that ICANn would escape ddealing with something

  Samantha Eisner:@Malcolm, I am not against a first reading.  We have noted our concerns with moving forward without any expectation of outside time limit, but we will not oppose the group moving forward

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:time check - 27 minutes tto the top of the hour

  avri doria:that is, i don't see Sam

  Robin Gross:I support first reading.

  avri doria:'s point.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Tuesday 6 June 1900 is the next call

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:so if we publish this week it would provide over one week's notice

  Robin Gross:I agree with your proposed approach, David.  We need to move forward.

  Greg Shatan:A first reading is a reading of a single proposal.

  avri doria:+1 for moving things towards conclusion

  avri doria:that is why there are 2 meetings for reading with an interval on a list.

  avri doria:i mean 2 reading in 2 meetings.

  avri doria:and if someone who missed this meeting reads that we read something they dispise, they speak up and they make the next meeting.

  avri doria:i would have prefered this having been called 1st, but ok.

  avri doria:eeek, why do things get so confusing at times.  no, don't tell me.

  avri doria:i support this having been a 1st reading. and i support what was 1st read.

  Robin Gross:I agree, Avri.

  Greg Shatan:I support calling this plus the list responses as a first reading, with next week as the second reading.

  avri doria:Greg, that discussion between 1st and 2nd is the discussion point.

  Greg Shatan:If anyone responds on the list within 48 hours consider it part of the first reading.

  Robin Gross:I support that approach, Malcom.

  Greg Shatan:I agree with Malcolm.

  avri doria:yes, and they can intervene on list or at net meeting.

  Greg Shatan:This is definitely not the "0th Reading."

  avri doria:yay

  David McAuley:email http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2017-May/000204.html

  Greg Shatan:Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

  David McAuley:2d email http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2017-May/000211.html

  Samantha Eisner:Can you explain why the definition of claimant needs to change to cover injunctive relief?

  Samantha Eisner:I'm not sure what the difference is for 4.3(p)?

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Time check - 5 minutes left in call

  Greg Shatan:+1 Malcolm

  Greg Shatan:I'll put my question to the list.

  Samantha Eisner:Thanks David and everyone

  Samantha Eisner:I have to drop

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:bye all

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:thanks

  Greg Shatan:Thank you, David, and Malcolm 2.  Bye!

  Robin Gross:thanks, bye

  avri doria:bye