IOT Meeting #11 (22 November @ 13:00 UTC)
- Brenda Brewer
- Yvette Guigneaux
Sub-group Members: Becky Burr, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Kate Wallace, Kavouss Arasteh, Malcolm Hutty, Marianne Georgelin, Olga Cavalli, Greg Shatan
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Berry Cobb
Apologies:
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
Agenda
1. Introduction/SOIs
2. Organizational Matters:
a. Meetings schedule
b. Sub-Teams?
3. IoT Tasks Ahead (generally)
4. Supplemental Rules – clarification/work?
5. AOB
Notes
1. Introduction/SOIs
2. Organizational Matters:
a. Meetings schedule
Bernard Turcotte: current reserved schedule is:
23 November 1300
2 December 1900
16 December 1900
13 January 1900
27 January 1900
David McAuley: we will review at the end of this meeting.
b. Sub-Teams?
David McAuley: too early to discuss.
3. IoT Tasks Ahead (generally)
David McAuley: we have received a number of requests after having presented the Supplementary Rules to the CCWG plenary and obtained approval for public consultation. How should we handle these?
Becky Burr: JC has asked about translation. KC had a point about joinder and if additional rules were needed for this.
David McAuley: Were these discussed in Hyderabad?
Becky Burr: no these were simply noted as questions.
David McAuley: As such we should proceed to the public consultation with the documents as presented in Hyderabad - any objections? (none).
Greg Shatan: Is it the intention to issue a revised set of suppl. rules. and would we then have another round of public consultation?
David McAuley: good question, uncertain.
Becky Burr: we anticipated that these would be iterative going forward. There is no requirement for these to go to public comment. We need the suppl. rules done ASAP.
David McAuley: there is another issue wrt timing that has been going on via the list between BB and MH (presentation of issue per email discussion). Are we ok to go forward with the current language on this?
Becky Burr: 45 days of becoming aware of material affect and in any case no later than 1 year after the action/inaction giving rise to the bylaws violation
Chris Disspain: that's what I recall was agreed Becky
Becky Burr: I think there is concern about the meaning of that provision. There is no substantive disagreement - simply concern that the wording may not properly represent the requirement. The time period starts when the policy is enforced (and not approved).
David McAuley: do you think the current wording is ok for this BB?
Becky Burr: yes.
Malcolm Hutty: There is little difference between our positions of intent but not comfortable that the words will be interpreted as such. We need to be more clear.
David McAuley: I am in agreement with Becky.
Chris Disspain: hasn't this gone out for public comment?
David McAuley: not yet Chris
Becky Burr: this also can be an issue for public comment
Chris Disspain: well, that was what I was going to say...Malcolm, how do you think the words would be interpreted?
Becky Burr: it has to be the party - the materially affected party has standing.
David McAuley: MH it would seem the best way forward on this issue could be for it to be brought up in the public comment.
Chirs Dispain: what it sounds like is that some of us are clear - what is it that is unclear?
Becky Burr: I think we can go out for public comment and ask Holly to provide an explanation.
Malcolm Hutty: (registrant example of rule being applied two years later.)
Becky Burr: This example is particularly complicated and extremely unlikely. Part of issue is whether it is action or inaction of ICANN or the registry or registrar.
Becky Burr: ;Let's just say that a policy that is facially invalid can be challenged any time
Malcolm Hutty: a registrant can bring such a challenge and if we restrict this then we are going against the Bylaws.
Chris Dispain: what we are talking about is timing - the right for a registrant to bring an IRP is absolute. The current set of rules have been approved by the CCWG in Hyderabad - any comments should be provided in the public consultation.
Becky Burr; provided, however, that a Consensus Policy that cannot be applied consistent with ICANN"s Bylaws can be challenged by a Materially Affected Party at any time. or Malcolm, you and I can propose a change to address facially invalid provisions in the comments.
Chris Dispain: There is no problem with making these comments in the public consultation. Any form of substantive change to the document would need to go to a second round of public comment.
David McAuley: We need to move forward and as such would request to we ask MH to submit this as a comment.
Becky Burr: I would suggest that in the meantime that we ask for an opinion from Sidley on this question and if there is an issue we could request suggested fixes while the public consultation is ongoing.
David McAuley: We would essentially be asking Sidley a question for a comment.
Malcolm Hutty: would support this.
David McAuley: Myself, BB and MH will develop a question for Sidley.
4. Supplemental Rules – clarification/work?
5. AOB
David McAuley: will not have a call on Dec2 and will maintain Dec 16 call.
Marianne Georgelin: The time is not convinient for europeans
David McAuley: Agreed but would ask for indulgence for the December 16 call – will review meeting times at that call. Adjourned.
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer:Good day all and welcome to IRP-IOT Meeting #11 on 22 November 2016 @ 13:00 UTC!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:morning all
David McAuley:Hello, dialing i9n
Olga Cavalli:Hello
Chris Disspain:Greetings!
David McAuley:Brenda, I am 4154
Brenda Brewer:Great! thanks, David.
Marianne Georgelin:Hello
David McAuley:We shall begin momentarily, give a brief minute for folks to gather
Becky Burr:good morning
Marianne Georgelin:No specific comment
Marianne Georgelin:it sounds ok
Becky Burr:no reason these can't be iterative
Becky Burr:45 days of becoming aware of material affect and in any case no later than 1 year after the action/inaction giving rise to the bylaws violation
Chris Disspain:that's what I recall was agreed Becky
Becky Burr:I think there is concern about the meaning of that provision
David McAuley:That is my recollection as well
Becky Burr:maybe we should ask the lawyers to parse the language to make everyone comfortable
Chris Disspain:hasn't this gone out for public comment?
David McAuley:not yet Chris
Chris Disspain:AH!
Becky Burr:this also can be an issue for public comment
Chris Disspain:well, that was what I was going to say...
Becky Burr:which i thought were implemented
Chris Disspain:Malcolm, how do you think the words would be interprted?
Becky Burr:it has to be the party - the materially affected party has standing
Becky Burr:yes, 2nd reading in Hyderabad
Becky Burr:yes
Becky Burr:i think we can go out for public comment and ask Holly to provide an explanation
Becky Burr:i think we agree on what should happen
Becky Burr:a registry is not ICANN
Becky Burr:actually, it's a little more complicated
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:cannot hear
Becky Burr:;et's just say that a policy that is facially invalid can be challenged any time
Becky Burr:; provided, however, that a Consensus Policy that cannot be applied consistent with ICANN"s Bylaws can be challenged by a Materially Affected Party at any time.
Becky Burr:or Malcolm, you and I can propose a change to adddress facially invalid provisions
Becky Burr:in the comments
Becky Burr:because we thought the concerns were addressed
Becky Burr:why not raise this in the comments? the point of a public comment period is to get comments and respond to them
Becky Burr:and meanwhile we can ask Holly for an interpretation
Becky Burr:Right Bernie
Becky Burr:right
Becky Burr:it wasn't just Hyderabad, we had another call in October
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:10 minutes to the top of the hour
Becky Burr:and I apologize, but I thought the coments from september were addressed
Chris Disspain:I am going to drop off the call now...look forward to the next call
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Bernard Turcotte: current reserved schedule is:23 November 13002 December 190016 December 190013 January 190027 January 1900
Marianne Georgelin:The time is not convinient for europeans
Marianne Georgelin:ok, no problem :)
Marianne Georgelin:thank you David
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:bye all