Sub-group Members: Amy Stathos, Avri Doria, Becky Burr, David McAuley, Ed McNicholas, Fran Faircloth, Holly Gregory, Kate Wallace, Kavouss Arasteh, Samantha Eisner, Tijani Ben Jemaa
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer
Apologies: Chris Disspain
**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/p9cg97dn9hi/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/accountability/irp-iot-03aug16-en.mp3
Notes
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer:Good day all and welcome to the IRP-IOT Meeting #7 on 3 August 2016 @ 13:00 UTC!
David McAuley:Hi Brenda - I am also 4154
Brenda Brewer:Thank you David.
David McAuley:Hi Avri
David McAuley:Hi Holly - see you now
David McAuley:I don't know why I have two log-ins on adobe - just did it once
David McAuley:oh - i guess that is my phone
David McAuley:someone sounds weary
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:hi all connectivity issuews this AM
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:but am on now
David McAuley:dog days
Brenda Brewer:Good to go, recordings are started
David McAuley:it is a little light today - we will need to stir folks up for next call
David McAuley:I agree becky
David McAuley:I did not see issue even after reading footnote
David McAuley:I have no issue with what Holly just said
Kavouss Arasteh:Dear Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh:I have not been able to be connected
Brenda Brewer:Kavouss, we can hear you typing, so I believe your microphone is working
David McAuley:sounds good Becky
Kavouss Arasteh:Dear Brenda
Kavouss Arasteh:May you pls adfvise to dial me up
David McAuley:I think this is a good idea, a confirmation of impartiality upon assignment to a panel
Kavouss Arasteh:dEAR bECKIE
Kavouss Arasteh:mAY YOU ADVISE TO DIAL ME UP
Brenda Brewer:Kavouss, you are being dialed out to
Brenda Brewer:thank you Kavouss
David McAuley:interference on line
David McAuley:No issue on that - commence should start once fees paid
David McAuley:that is within three days of filing
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Please remember to mute if you are not speaking
Kavouss Arasteh:I have two quesions, 1. what is meant by electronic means? idoes it means e-mail correspondence or what?
Kavouss Arasteh:ALSO WHO AND HOW DECISION IS MADE THAT A MEETING IS EXTRAORDINARY?!£
David McAuley:please mute if typing
Kavouss Arasteh:wHAT DOES IT MEAN" LIMITED TO ARGUMENT"?
Kavouss Arasteh:WHAT IS MEANT BY EXTRAORDINARY CASE?
Samantha Eisner:can scrolling be turned back on?
Kavouss Arasteh:Who decides that a case is extraordinary?
Kavouss Arasteh:What do you mean by " Argument only"
David McAuley:Right now witness statements are to be in writing - maybe, in EXTRAORDINARY CASES, witness testimony should be subject to cross-examination - if we can well draft such rules so this does not become the normal course
Kavouss Arasteh:Beckie, your exoplnation was bnot clear?
Kavouss Arasteh:it is a egg and chicken?
Becky Burr:Kavouss, the panelists determine whether or not the circumstances justify a face to face hearing, by applying the three part test.
David McAuley:I have no problem with such a presumption as Sam just stated
Kavouss Arasteh:Still , I am not clear what we mean by extraordinary cases?
David McAuley:it might help explain that extraordinary circumstances are meant to be relatively rare
Kavouss Arasteh:what are the criteria based on which the panelist decides that a case is extraordinary?
Samantha Eisner:"necessary" doesn't help explain WHY it is necessary
Kavouss Arasteh:My question to describe what we mean by " arguement only"
Samantha Eisner:what would we look to in order to say that something is necessary? Is it an issue of first impression that is very fact intensive?
David McAuley:I think the nature of necessary will probably be best left to panel - so long as the concept of necessity is clear and meaningful
Samantha Eisner:Is it complex in teh number of issues presented
Kavouss Arasteh:sorry, we are talking in subjective manner, such as, if necessary; extraordinary; argument only
Kavouss Arasteh:What these things mean?
David McAuley:can we allow interim appeal to standing panel of these issues
Kavouss Arasteh:who decides that something is not or it is necessary?
David McAuley:a quick appeal of sorts
Kavouss Arasteh:WE NEED CRITERIA FOR ALL THESE THINGS
David McAuley:agree with Sam - IRPs cannot default to week long hearings - we need to prtect against that and the norm should be electronic
Avri Doria:i have a problem with condition 3. Fairness and furtherance should be enough.
Kavouss Arasteh:Beckie, what are the criteria based on which the panelist determine that something is neccessary ?
David McAuley:The problem with case law is already existing decisions in a constrictive IRP setting - cases would have to start with new IRP, no?
Samantha Eisner:@Ed, are you talking about IRP "case law" or US case law?
Kavouss Arasteh:when panelists decide ,based on a predtermined criteria , or based on their own judgement something is necessary, is it on unanimity or majority?
Ed McNicholas, Sidley Austin LLP:Yes; IRP cases going forward
Kavouss Arasteh:I am sorry, no answer was given to any of four questions that I raised
Samantha Eisner:Initial guidance on what would demonstrate "necessary"
Samantha Eisner:that's what we're looking for
David McAuley:I think "necessary" must be clearly underscored as a requirement but panel will have to say if it is met in any one instance
Samantha Eisner:Yes, we can do that
David McAuley:Thanks Sam - it should help
David McAuley:isn't it majority?
David McAuley:Good idea to check with ICDR
Avri Doria:but money cannot trump or even be eqqual to fairness.
Avri Doria:some consideration may be fine, but not as an equal condition.
David McAuley:"considertions of fairness" could conclude that fairness is not at risk
David McAuley:Becky's recollections sounds right
David McAuley:one more call on this plus the draft of Sam in meantime
David McAuley:I think this issue, cross examination, is similar to one just discussed - we need to high bar wording that will work to make it extraordinary
Samantha Eisner:@Becky, reinstating the bar on live witness testimony would be our preference at this time
David McAuley:please mute if not speaking
David McAuley:I have no problem with panel determikning materiality - if we think these words get there then that is ok - but the determination of materiality cannot be by the party holding the document
Ed McNicholas, Sidley Austin LLP:On the ex parte issue, should we add something to the effect that "If circumstances require the ex parte consideration of emergency relief, all parties shall be heard as soon as reasonably possible after the grant of emergency relief."?
Samantha Eisner:@ David, D is taken directly from the Bylaws
Samantha Eisner:ICANN's breach on PTI matters
David McAuley:ok Sam
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Note - last 13 minutes of the call
David McAuley:thanks bernie
David McAuley:Bernie
Kavouss Arasteh:Does CCWG have any opportunity to discuss or comments on what we are doing?
Kavouss Arasteh:Does our work conditions to receive comments from public
David McAuley:I must leave. Thanks Becky, staff, and all – look forward to call next week.
Brenda Brewer:we post meetings here: https://community.icann.org/x/FCOOAw
Kavouss Arasteh:thanks a lot
Kavouss Arasteh:That helps considerably
Kavouss Arasteh:Regards
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:by all
Avri Doria:bye
Becky Burr:thanks
Ed McNicholas, Sidley Austin LLP:Goodbye
