Sub-group Members: Avri Doria, David McAuley, Greg Shatan, Kate Wallace, Kavouss Arasteh, Liz Le, Malcolm Hutty, Samantha Eisner
Staff: Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer,
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. Volunteers needed – status of sign-up sheet
3. Status of timing issue/final comments from Malcolm if wished (we received Liz’s input from ICANN Legal but Malcolm, the leader on this issue, was not present to comment on last call. This is not a full discussion – simply final points so we can take the issue to list for first reading);
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. First reading on certain issues as per David’s email of May 12th:
a. Joinder;
b. Panel Conflict of Interest;
c. Retroactivity:
i. Rules;
ii. Substantive standard.
d. Standing (Materially Affected);
6. Challenges to Consensus policy;
7. Status of IOT work and deadline;
8. Plans for next call;
9. AOB
Raw Caption Notes*
*Note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call
Decisions:
- (none)
Action Items:
- DM – Propose new approach and date for completing review of public comments
- DM – Complete populating signup sheet for analysis and presentation of public comments.
- DM – to publish updated versions of his analyses of the public comments he has posted on.
Requests:
- Participants – Sign up for analyzing a public comment issue.
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: Good day and welcome to IRP-IOT Meeting #22 on 18 May 2017 @ 19:00 UTC!
Brenda Brewer: If you are not speaking, please mute your phone by pressing *6 (star 6). To unmute press *6. This call is recorded.
Brenda Brewer: Reminder to all, please state your name before speaking for the Captioner. Thank you
Kavouss Arasteh: Hi Brenda
Brenda Brewer: Hello Kavouss!
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: Hi all
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: I can hear you well
Brenda Brewer: Sarah, I did audio test, could you hear me?
Sarah Captioner: I there is sound, I'm going to redial
David McAuley: Hi I am 4154
Brenda Brewer: Hi David.
Brenda Brewer: Thanks you
David McAuley: Hi all - I will speak up at top of hour - may want to wait two minutes after that
Kavouss Arasteh: Dvid H
David McAuley: Hi Kate - we are waiting a few min
David McAuley: Hi Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh: Apart from you , there are 6 persons,
David McAuley: one more min - I will speak up at 3 past
Kavouss Arasteh: Still too low. Howev with 5 participants but there is no qurum for first reading , you may start e
Kavouss Arasteh: Now we are 6 persons
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: Six listed members
Greg Shatan: Hello all, sorry to be late.
Kavouss Arasteh: what discussion ?
avri doria: ok, i can take other - ongoinng monioring
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: @David re Ongoing - correct
avri doria: is the url in emal?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: @David - link already sent
David McAuley: should be Avri
avri doria: yes, found it thaks
avri doria: so any second term would require renomination?
avri doria: by the SOAC.
avri doria: can the Board reject a renominee that gave them grief?
Samantha Eisner: @Avri, I think that it would be important for renomination so that the SO/AC could also consider panelists
Samantha Eisner: IMO, just because a panelist ruled against ICANN, that would be NOT reasonable as a basis for denying reappointment
avri doria: yes, but reasons are fungible, one can alwasy find another reasons.
Samantha Eisner: however, if a panelist was identified as a reason for excessive delays in reaching determinations, that could be a reason for not reappointing
avri doria: being a panelist is a job. people naturally want to keep their jpbs
Samantha Eisner: Right, but there are many people they'd have to serve; so as Greg says, independence is the measure
avri doria: current events show us how narrow the line is.
avri doria: the line between pandering and just doing ones job.
Greg Shatan: I think the panelist want to do their jobs, and that's the best way to keep their job.
Greg Shatan: Should we consider permanent panelists then?
Greg Shatan: Or automatic renewal unless there's a failure to perform.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: Time Check - 18 minutes left in call
Greg Shatan: I could agree with Malcolm
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: time check 9 minutes left
Malcolm Hutty: Good point about SOs Greg: the IRP is supposed to be independent of them too, not only of ICANN Inc.
avri doria: automatic renewl of a 5 yr term unless there is a issue raised by the EC or Board might be ok.
Greg Shatan: Section 4.3(j) states: Appointments to the Standing Panel shall be made for a fixed term of five years with no removal except for specified cause in the nature of corruption, misuse of position, fraud or criminal activity.
avri doria: i do not support changing that.
Greg Shatan: The standards above could also be used for the renewal.
Brenda Brewer: Apologies, captions has technical difficulties and had to disconnet.
Samantha Eisner: @Greg, agree with those as guidance for standards, but there has to also be considerations such as was teh panelist actually available for any proceedings during the first term? Were they they cause of any delay or violation of rules? Things like that which would lead to questions on wehther the panelist actually furthers the purpose of the IRP in their service
Malcolm Hutty: Makes sense to use the existing standard.
Greg Shatan: Sam, I think that failure to perform could be added, with some specific bounds. I'm not too concerned by that.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: top of the hour
Greg Shatan: Without a formal standard, I would expect someone would tug the elbow of a non=performer and suggest they decline to serve....
Greg Shatan: But express standards are better.
