Attendees: 

Members:  Becky Burr, David McAuley, Flip Petillion, Greg Shatan, Kristina Rosette, Malcolm Hutty, Mike Rodenbaugh, Sam Eisner, Susan Payne

Guests/Observers: Kate Wallace, Liz Le

ICANN Org: Bernard Turcotte, Devan Reed

Apologies: Brenda Brewer

** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to brenda.brewer@icann.org **


Agenda:

  1. Review agenda and updates to SOIs
  2. Action Items: Mike R to share proposals for who/when Org ought to have a duty to notify of commencement of an IRP
  3. Conclude initial review and discussion of small team’s proposed revision to Rule 7 (clean, annotated and redline versions reattached for convenience):
    1. Continuing from Rule 7 (19)
    2. Discussion of Mike R’s proposal (from action items)
  4. Next steps, timing, sessions in Hamburg
  5. Next call 29 August 1800 UTC
  6. AOB

Transcript: PDF

Recordings: 

Documents: PDF Rule 7_12 July 2023 Clean version of text

Zoom Chat Transcript:  

00:29:59    David McAuley (Verisign):    Becky, Greg, and Flip will likely join
00:30:39    Flip Petillion:    Now I may have to leave earlier. Apologies for that
00:30:57    David McAuley (Verisign):    sorry about that - Flip I see you are here and will not be arriving late
00:42:33    Kristina Rosette:    We talked about it briefly, but I don't think we reached a conclusion generally or specifically as to the Panel's deadlie.
00:42:37    Kristina Rosette:    deadline.
00:46:14    David McAuley (Verisign):    sounds reasonable, what Malcolm suggests
00:46:19    Kristina Rosette:    Malcolm's suggestion seems fair.
00:46:33    Mike Rodenbaugh:    I would support that too
00:47:30    Flip Petillion:    +1
00:51:37    Mike Rodenbaugh:    The intervenor might not even know the panel yet, especially if the Standing Panel is still not in place
00:52:27    Mike Rodenbaugh:    Why not specifically say “having the primary intent to create a conflict of interest with an appointed panelist”?
00:52:56    Kristina Rosette:    That works for me, Mike.
00:53:55    Kristina Rosette:    have to step away for a moment
00:56:02    Mike Rodenbaugh:    It seems to me that the IRP claimant should be able to oppose the motion for intervention, without the Panel ordering briefing
01:00:05    Flip Petillion:    Agree with that
01:00:10    Sam Eisner - ICANN Org:    ICANN might also have a position on the propriety of intervention
01:00:21    Sam Eisner - ICANN Org:    So it should probably be a right to all of the parties to the IRP
01:00:36    Mike Rodenbaugh:    That is fair, Sam
01:00:57    Flip Petillion:    It indeed is
01:01:53    David McAuley (Verisign):    agreed
01:02:04    Kristina Rosette:    Agree with Sam's proposal.  Omission of opposition was definitely more of an oversight than intentional
01:02:50    Malcolm Hutty:    @David McAuley (Verisign) If the Parties don't oppose the intervention, what is there to say if they are ordered to brief the panel?
01:03:18    Flip Petillion:    Even if not provided the opposition could be made - standard in arbitration
01:04:23    David McAuley (Verisign):    I don't have a good example, Malcolm, but I am thinking there must be case(s) where panel may want to be briefed -
01:09:58    Flip Petillion:    Good point Mike - i only know it at EU Court of Justice level - there is no possibility to comment/reply or to object to an amicus brief - would need to double check though
01:11:44    Mike Rodenbaugh:    I agree with Malcolm and remove the “but does not satisfy the standing requirements” proviso.  The affected party should be able to decide if they would prefer just to file a brief, rather than fully participate in an expensive IRP case.
01:12:57    Kristina Rosette:    Here's part of Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
01:13:23    Flip Petillion:    That is how i see an amicus: an amicus does not participate - it just files a brief
01:14:09    becky:    This seems way more permissive than any court other than in the Supreme Court
01:14:12    Kristina Rosette:    (2) When Permitted. The United States or its officer or agency or a state may file an amicus brief without the consent of the parties or leave of court. Any other amicus curiae may file a brief only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing, but a court of appeals may prohibit the filing of or may strike an amicus brief that would result in a judge's disqualification.
01:14:23    Kristina Rosette:    Oops. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
01:14:41    becky:    And even then you have to be a member of the Supreme Court bar
01:20:26    David McAuley (Verisign):    one of the purposes of IRP is o reduce disputes as well - reasonable allowance of amici status, under control of panel, seems sensible to me - let the panel manage this on the ground
01:23:17    Flip Petillion:    I tend to agree with you David
01:23:33    Flip Petillion:    On this point :-)
01:23:43    David McAuley (Verisign):    :-)
01:27:45    David McAuley (Verisign):    this could be an amicus who is supporting ICANN's position
01:27:57    David McAuley (Verisign):    subpara iv that is
01:28:27    Sam Eisner - ICANN Org:    I think there’s a potential for any amicus to support ICANN’s position or the claimant’s position
01:28:44    David McAuley (Verisign):    but this one specifically seems that way to me
01:30:41    Bernard Turcotte:    Time check - 28 minutes left in call
01:31:22    Kristina Rosette:    In light of the opposition addition and the removal of the "don't have standing to be a Claimant" language, I think we should remove iv.
01:39:19    David McAuley (Verisign):    I think Malcolm and Kristina make fair points about introductory phrasing. But I also suspect we won't solve that in this call and maybe we should do this on list and speak about plans for ICANN 78 at a point in this call.
01:39:42    Flip Petillion:    I will come back on it in mail or next call - I must leave - Apologies - Talk to you soon!
01:43:31    David McAuley (Verisign):    Plus 1 @ Susan
01:49:52    Kristina Rosette:    I support trying to get this out for public comment before Hamburg - even if that means we have to meet weekly.
01:55:16    Kristina Rosette:    Got it. Definitely support going out for public comment. Prepared to meet weekly to get there.
01:56:39    David McAuley (Verisign):    weekly calls ok w me
01:56:53    Bernard Turcotte:    bye all


  • No labels