Sub-group Members: Avri Doria, David McAuley, Elizabeth Le, Greg Shatan, Kavouss Arasteh, Malcolm Hutty, Robin Gross.
Staff: Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Samantha Eisner, Yvette Guigneaux.
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. Status of sign-up sheet;
3. Status of Staff Report Date (currently still showing May 29 (which is itself a revised date))
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. Status/update of timing issue
6. First reading on certain issues as per David’s email of May 19th:
a. Retroactivity:
i. Rules;
ii. Substantive standard.
b. Standing (Materially Affected)’
c. Panel Conflict of Interest.
7. Challenges to Consensus policy;
8. Begin discussion on “Discovery, evidence, statements” – I will be unable to send thoughts to list but will be prepared to begin the discussion.
9. Explanation/discussion of the process after we conclude this phase
10. AOB
Raw Caption Notes*
*Note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call
Decisions:
- Report on public comments due 29 May. Given the deadline cannot be met staff will draft an interim note explaining the situation for DM.
- Timing issues (45 days and Repose) – MH proposal accepted as a first reading. This will be published to the list and be scheduled for a second reading at the next IOT meeting.
- Retroactivity issue – DM proposal accepted as a first reading. This will be published to the list and be scheduled for a second reading at the next IOT meeting.
Action Items:
- Staff – Prepare an interim note re public comment for review by DM given we will not meet the 29 May deadline.
- MH – Publish timing issue proposal to list advising that the second reading will be at the next IOT meeting.
- DM – Publish Retroactivity issue proposal to list advising that the second reading will be at the next IOT meeting.
Requests:
- Participants – Sign up for analyzing a public comment issues.
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Yvette Guigneaux:Welcome all to the IRP - IOT Meeting #23 | 25 May 2017 @ 19:00 UTC!
Yvette Guigneaux:If you are not speaking, please mute your phone by pressing *6 (star 6). To unmute press *6. This call is recorded.Reminder to all, please state your name before speaking for the Captioner.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Hello all
David McAuley:4154 is my number
Yvette Guigneaux:Hi David - got it, thank you
David McAuley:I will come on phone at top of hour - we will probably wait till 2 past then
David McAuley:hi Avri - will start in a min
David McAuley:hi Robin - same - start soon
avri doria:ok, thanks
Robin Gross:thanks
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:great suggestion
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Greg
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:here you go - the magic of staff
Robin Gross:Thanks for the work on this issue, I agree with the proposal to extend the timing
Greg Shatan:I think Sam is raising a subject matter jurisdiction question. The scope of the IRP will be the same on day 1 or day 1000.
David McAuley:I think Sam is making a relevant and fair point Greg, so I guess I don't agree to some extent
Greg Shatan:Remedies need not be redress or relief for a particular entity.
David McAuley:I think colloqually that is how they are understood
Greg Shatan:David, how do you see Sam's issue as one of timing and not one of what the IRP is competent to hear at any time?
David McAuley:Sam was, I think, responding to the wrong without remedy comment
Samantha Eisner:@Greg, I was discussing the broader issue. But if it's being tied to remedies of harm to individuals whenever they might be harmed, it might not fit that purpose
Greg Shatan:I agree that the IRP is not intended to be a forum for every wrong. But that's not a timing issue.
Robin Gross:I don't think creating a remedy and providing accountability are mutually exclusive concepts. They are both.
Samantha Eisner:Thanks David
Greg Shatan:@Sam, I was not referring solely to redress/relief to the party at issue. However, I think it's likely that the claimant will have some benefit from a decision in their favor.
Samantha Eisner:@Malcolm, the harm is that there is an allowance for ICANN to continue to act in violation of the Bylaws for an indeterminate period of time
Samantha Eisner:There's an element of accountability to the ICANN community - if ICANN was acting outside of Bylaws, that should be flagged as quickly as possible
Greg Shatan:It may not be clear that ICANN was acting outside the Bylaws until some later action is taken.
Robin Gross:Sorry I don't have audio today.
Greg Shatan:If it is clear to the Claimant, then the rule in front of us takes care of that.
avri doria:I am fine wih the proposal, in general i favor longer timings.
avri doria:why would longer timings mean that ICANn would escape ddealing with something
Samantha Eisner:@Malcolm, I am not against a first reading. We have noted our concerns with moving forward without any expectation of outside time limit, but we will not oppose the group moving forward
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:time check - 27 minutes tto the top of the hour
avri doria:that is, i don't see Sam
Robin Gross:I support first reading.
avri doria:'s point.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Tuesday 6 June 1900 is the next call
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:so if we publish this week it would provide over one week's notice
Robin Gross:I agree with your proposed approach, David. We need to move forward.
Greg Shatan:A first reading is a reading of a single proposal.
avri doria:+1 for moving things towards conclusion
avri doria:that is why there are 2 meetings for reading with an interval on a list.
avri doria:i mean 2 reading in 2 meetings.
avri doria:and if someone who missed this meeting reads that we read something they dispise, they speak up and they make the next meeting.
avri doria:i would have prefered this having been called 1st, but ok.
avri doria:eeek, why do things get so confusing at times. no, don't tell me.
avri doria:i support this having been a 1st reading. and i support what was 1st read.
Robin Gross:I agree, Avri.
Greg Shatan:I support calling this plus the list responses as a first reading, with next week as the second reading.
avri doria:Greg, that discussion between 1st and 2nd is the discussion point.
Greg Shatan:If anyone responds on the list within 48 hours consider it part of the first reading.
Robin Gross:I support that approach, Malcom.
Greg Shatan:I agree with Malcolm.
avri doria:yes, and they can intervene on list or at net meeting.
Greg Shatan:This is definitely not the "0th Reading."
avri doria:yay
David McAuley:email http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2017-May/000204.html
Greg Shatan:Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
David McAuley:2d email http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2017-May/000211.html
Samantha Eisner:Can you explain why the definition of claimant needs to change to cover injunctive relief?
Samantha Eisner:I'm not sure what the difference is for 4.3(p)?
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Time check - 5 minutes left in call
Greg Shatan:+1 Malcolm
Greg Shatan:I'll put my question to the list.
Samantha Eisner:Thanks David and everyone
Samantha Eisner:I have to drop
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:bye all
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:thanks
Greg Shatan:Thank you, David, and Malcolm 2. Bye!
Robin Gross:thanks, bye
avri doria:bye
