IOT Meeting #10 (7 September @ 05:00 UTC)
- Brenda Brewer
- Aleksey Khapchenko
Sub-group Members: Avri Doria, Becky Burr, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Jeff LeVee, Samantha Eisner
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer
Apologies: Malcolm Hutty
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8tb6fx4oxk/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/accountability/irp-iot-07sep16-en.mp3
Notes
7 September 2016 @ 05:00 UTC
- Apologies: Malcom Hutty
- 6 Attendees (not including staff)
Becky Burr: Presentation of slides. Only 3 issues left.
Effect on Existing IRPs
- Becky Burr: - two alternatives. 1 existing rules prevail until an IRP is completed or 2 a party may appeal for application of the new rules.
- David McAuley: Almost diametrically opposed to Avri's position of the second alternative. We should present this to the full CCWG.
- Chris Disspain: 'retrospective legislation' is never good IMO and I think David speaks sense.
- Avri Doria: we would need to do this for a reason of justice if there are significant changes.
- Samantha Eisner: As noted by DM last week there may be legal issues with retroactive issues. We could ask the legal team to have a look at this vs California law.
- Becky Burr: I think her point is that we do provide for a situation if these updated rules are subsequently amended. She's correct, although those changes cannot change the standard of review that we are putting into place as that is in the bylaws
- Chris Disspain: that's a key distinction Becky....
- Avri Doria: we can envision, but we do not know and cannot predict.
- David McAuley: agreed
- Becky Burr: That makes sense and we should have the legal team have a look at this.
- Avri Doria: We should look at both instances of retroactivity with the legal team.
Deadline to File
- Becky Burr: The next issue. Malcolm Hutty who is not present at this meeting is the person who is most concerned about this issue. This has given rise to 3 alternatives. Several people have supported the third option - becomes aware of the material affect of the action or inaction giving rise to the Dispute; provided, however, that a statement of a Dispute may not be filed more than twenty-four months from the date of such action or inaction.
- David McAuley: I support alternative 3 but cannot support MH's position and would suggest putting this to the full CCWG. MH's point is well made but those hearing the case in this situation vs those hearing the case in the situation of a nation state are really quire different. We may also ask the co-chairs to provide adequate time for this at the CCWG plenary.
- Becky Burr: my concern on alt 2 or 3 arises if ICANN takes an action that someone else acts in reliance on (e.g., ICANN delegates a TLD) and someone challenges that 5 years later
- Chris Disspain: I agree Becky...we should put this to the CCWG. I am uncomfortable also with 2 and 3
- Samantha Eisner: For the time for filing, maybe the briefing could include some sort of stress testing or examples of the situations that are under consideration?
- David McAuley: good idea Sam
- Becky Burr: If we present this to the full CCWG we have to bring clear and practical examples of potential issues. The final issue is Cross Examination at hearings. Four alternatives are being considered.
Cross Examination at Hearings
- Avri Doria: I support Atl 3
- David McAuley: I support Alt 2
- Becky Burr: We should probably take this back to the full CCWG also. We will put these points in the draft report.
- Chris:Dispain the problem with alt 3 will be consistency
- Becky Burrr: It would be very helpful if SE could initiate discussions with Sidley and Adler as well as concrete examples would be great.
AOB
- David McAuley: SE should copy Leon Sanchez who leads the legal committee.
- Avri Doria: isn't that realted to WS2 issues not pending WS1 issues?
- Samantha Eisner: @Avri, I think that's correct, but I don't think there's harm to David's suggestion
- Avri Doria: no harm, just don't want to see it charged against th ws2 budget
- Samantha Eisner: totally understood. The work is coded differently.
- David McAuley: what is it we need to complete our work in this group?
- Becky Burr: This is a temporary measure and we need to get ot the other issues rapidly.
- Becky Burr: thanks all and adjourned.
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer:Good day all and welcome to IRP-IOT Meeting #10 on 7 September 2016 @ 05:00 UTC!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:hi all
Becky Burr:Good morniing everyone
Becky Burr:If you are identified by a telephone number in the participants list, please let us know who you are
Jeff LeVee (Jones Day):3103453536 = Jeff LeVee
David McAuley:Hi Brenda, I am 8222
Brenda Brewer:Thank you both!
David McAuley:1am here
Chris Disspain:Hi Becky, All...I'm on a dodgy connection but can hear you
Becky Burr:thanks Chris
Chris Disspain:Going back how far?
Samantha Eisner:9616 is my phone line
Brenda Brewer:thank you Sam
Chris Disspain:'retrospective legislation' is never good IMO
Becky Burr:i believe that there are several IRPs where the panel is about to render judgment
Samantha Eisner:@Becky, yes
Chris Disspain:I think David speaks sense
Chris Disspain:not sure I understand Avri's point
David McAuley:I am not sure as well, altho had aduio cut out for a bbrief period
Chris Disspain:ditto
Becky Burr:I think her point is that we do provide for a situation if these updated rules are subsequently amended. She's correct, although those changes cannot change the standard of review that we are putting into place as that is in the bylaws
Chris Disspain:that's a key distinction Becky....
Avri Doria:we can envvision, but wwe do not know and connot predict.
David McAuley:agreed
David McAuley:i recall that point and think it might be good to run past Rosemary
Avri Doria:any review should take both changes into account
Becky Burr:agreed
Samantha Eisner:understood
David McAuley:good
Avri Doria:i think Alt3 looks good. though i too think the 45 rule is absurdly short.
Chris Disspain:In essence I agree with David....
Becky Burr:my concern on alt 2 or 3 arises if ICANN takes an action that someone else acts in reliance on (e.g., ICANN delegates a TLD) and someone challenges that 5 years later
Chris Disspain:I agree Becky...we should put this to the CCWG
Chris Disspain:I am uncomfrtable also with 2 and 3
Chris Disspain:yes Becky
Chris Disspain:we need a specific paper on this
Chris Disspain:I have lost audio...will try to log in again
Samantha Eisner:For the time for filing, maybe the briefing could include some sort of stress testing or examples of the situations that are under consideration?
David McAuley:good idea Sam
David McAuley:welcome back Chris
Avri Doria:i support Atl 3
David McAuley:I support Alt 2
Chris:the problem with alt 3 will be consistency
Samantha Eisner:will do. We'll reach out tomorrow
Avri Doria:isn't that realted to WS2 issues not pending WS1 issues?
Samantha Eisner:@Avri, I think that's correct, but I don't think there's harm to David's suggestion
David McAuley:good point Avri, thank you
Avri Doria:no harm, just don't want to see it charged against th ws2 budget
Samantha Eisner:totally understood. The work is coded differently
David McAuley:OK, thanks Becky
David McAuley:I did - on EOI
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:by all
Chris:thanks!
Becky Burr:goodnight all
David McAuley:thanks Becky, staff and all
Samantha Eisner:good night