Sub-group Members: Amy Stathos, Avri Doria, Becky Burr, David McAuley, Edward McNicholas, Fran Faircloth, Holly Gregory, Kate Wallace, Kavouss Arasteh, Malcolm Hutty, Olga Cavalli, Samantha Eisner, Tijani Ben Jemaa
Staff: Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer
Apologies:
**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/p9n3348qjej/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/accountability/irp-iot-11aug16-en.mp3
Notes
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer:Good day all and welcome to the IRP-IPT Meeting #8 on 11 August 2016 @ 13:00 UTC!
Becky Burr:Hi Brenda and Kavouss
Kavouss Arasteh:hI bECKIE,
Kavouss Arasteh:hI BRENDA
Kavouss Arasteh:off iSSUE,
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):Hello all.
Kavouss Arasteh:May you pls advise the CWG TIMING call today
Brenda Brewer:Call will start in 4 minutes Kavouss.
Kavouss Arasteh:Does it means that CWG and IOT calls overlapping?
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):I thought the CWG call starts in one hour
Becky Burr:the CWG call starts in one hour Kavouss
Brenda Brewer:No overlap. When this one ends, the CWG begins in another Adobe room
Edward McNicholas, Sidley:Good morning
Kavouss Arasteh:But when ICANN advise on CWG calls ,it was expected to also include timing
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):someone is typing. Please check that your lines are muted
Kavouss Arasteh:Pls then send me the adobe for CWG and dial up on both
Kavouss Arasteh:Tks
David McAuley:dialing in
Brenda Brewer:Calling you now Kavouss.
David McAuley:Brenda, I am 4154
Kavouss Arasteh:I am not yet connected thuS IT IS NOT MEa
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:hi all
Kavouss Arasteh:dear Bernard
David McAuley:Hello Bernie
Kavouss Arasteh:May I respectfully request you to amend your master Plan by including CWG, IOT in the Plan
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):I also hear chirldren playinge
David McAuley:read the siles, have not read Aug 4 supplemental rules yet
David McAuley:slides I mean
Malcolm Hutty:Becky, I have a further issue to raise
David McAuley:the slides are clear and helpful
David McAuley:On slide two, changes to supplemental rules I suggest deleting the word “not” in the phrase “would not affect any party’s substantive…” and instead insert (where “not” was) the word “significantly”.
Malcolm Hutty:For the record, I asked for the floor when the agenda was listed, so as to request a fourth substantive topic
Kavouss Arasteh:I suggest to replace" Take Place " by " is effective" or " comes into force"
Kavouss Arasteh:The last part is vague and non clear
Becky Burr:apologies Malcolm, didn't see yyour request, and I will turn to you next
Kavouss Arasteh:I disagree with Significantly as it is subjective
Kavouss Arasteh:Becjkie I have raised my hand before David and Holly
Becky Burr:you are next Kavouss
Becky Burr:i asked Holly to respond to David's input.
Becky Burr:and he appeared in my queue first
Kavouss Arasteh:i oppose to significantly
David McAuley:affect or impair
Kavouss Arasteh:Is this call private?
David McAuley:Kavouss, I saw your hand up but it was down then when I raised my hand
David McAuley:thats it
David McAuley:what becky said
David McAuley:Becky
David McAuley:I think Becky's disadvantage is better than affect
Olga Cavalli:Hi apolgoies for being late
Becky Burr:hi Olga
Avri Doria:But we are maintianing that any current IRP are not affected in any way by the changed rules? I find that problematic on substantive rights.
Becky Burr:I will ask you to speak to that next Avri
David McAuley:good language Holly - I support
David McAuley:i accept materiality as the word
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):Thank you Kavouss and David. We will use the materiality language
Kavouss Arasteh:I have a question on the last part
David McAuley:I think we need to avoid causing existing panels to relitiage substantive matters that have been litigated but not yet resolved
David McAuley:relitigate
David McAuley:this is a tough one
David McAuley:I think I agree w/Kavouss that this aspect might not be implementable
Avri Doria:i am anot talking about procedural issue, i am talking at applying the sae conditions we just agrreed to to current cases.
Avri Doria:And this is also not suggesting the introduction of new evidence on rewrite of submissions.
Avri Doria:evidence or rewrite ...
Kavouss Arasteh:Avri, what is your concrete proposal pls?
David McAuley 2:Our final proposal from WS1 was prospective and we did not mention going back in this manner, Avri's idea makes sense but seems inconsistent with out proposal in some respects
Avri Doria:give me a sec
David McAuley 2:we may need more time than one hour
David McAuley 2:fair enough as becky proposes
David McAuley 2:Becky
Kavouss Arasteh:I am sorry I have another important meeting at 14,00 utc
David McAuley 2:On slide three, in=person hearing, I am not sure that the word “evidence” is quite right – what is needed is a demonstration but that might be down to argument, consideration of circumstances that are not so much “evidence” as “apparent”
Avri Doria:ReplaceIRPs commenced prior to the adoption of these Updated Supplementary Procedures shall be governed by the Supplementary Procedures in effect at the time such IRPs were commenced. withIRPs commenced prior to the adoption of these Updated Supplementary Procedures shall be governed procedurally by the Supplementary Procedures in effect at the time such IRPs were commenced. In the event that any of UPS amendments would materially affect judgement on the case as presented such amendments may be applied in a party successfully ....
David McAuley 2:that is with respecy to ICANN language
David McAuley 2:I support Sidley language
Kavouss Arasteh:I do not support that .
Avri Doria:oops spaces got swallowed in the cut and paste. apologies
David McAuley 2:With respect to ICANN language, I suggest changing this language: “…which are limited to circumstances where, upon motion by a Party, the IRP PANEL determines that the party seeking an in-person hearing has demonstrated, with clear and convincing evidence…” to language in my next chat entry.
David McAuley 2:Suggested new language in slide three: “…where, upon motion by a Party, the IRP PANEL determines that the party seeking an in-person hearing has clearly demonstrated …”
Kavouss Arasteh:I do not support Sidley language. For me ICANN language is more clear, precise and understandable
Avri Doria:sent langauge snippet to list.
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):we at Sidley are fine with the ICANN language
Kavouss Arasteh:Tks Holly
David McAuley 2:I agree with ICANN's last sentence as Becky just did
Samantha Eisner:I heard David say "clearly demonstrates". How about "clearly and convincingly demonstrates"?
David McAuley 2:it is in chat above also
Becky Burr:"where, upon motion by a Party, the IRP Panel determines that the party seeking an in person hearing has clearly demonstrated"
Kavouss Arasteh:how the davide proposal could be inserted in Icann
Malcolm Hutty:Why does this need to be so tight, Samantha? If a Panel is convinced that a hearing is necessary to a fair outcome, surely it should happen. We've got language to make it abundantly clear this is not the be the normal procedure
David McAuley 2:Malcom makes a good point
David McAuley 2:Malcom - typing bad today
David McAuley 2:Malcolm
David McAuley 2:but this is not necessarily evidence as i see it
Becky Burr:i tend to agree that we are clearly setting the bar high with the David language
David McAuley 2:and between the two on screen, I prefer Sidleay language
David McAuley 2:Sidley - oh my what typing
Kavouss Arasteh:I agree with Holly that clearly convincing is too strong
David McAuley 2:if clearly and convincingly is seen as higher than clearly, then I prefer clearly
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):in effect Sam's comment if taken will drw in case law about what clear and convincing means
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):drw + draw
David McAuley 2:drawing in case law a bad idea in my opinion, at least in this respect
Becky Burr:+1 David
David McAuley 2:agreew Malcolm as well
Amy Stathos:I do not think that would work
Brenda Brewer:If your phone number is listed in the Attendee pod, please identify your name. Thank you!
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley):I think David's orignial proposal was clearest
Amy Stathos:310xxx5477 is Amy Stathos
Avri Doria:but an extraordinary circumstance may be defined by changing circumstances &c.
Malcolm Hutty:I agree with Becky's interpretation here
David McAuley 2:agree w/Holly, good point
Avri Doria:what does "could have been previously presented"mean in the context of new circustance or other facts.
David McAuley 2:I agree w Malcolm's earlier point about panel making decision - if it makes the decisison it was convinced and if add "convincing" brings in case law then we are making problems
David McAuley 2:"convincing" is a good word to instruct a jury - not needed here
Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): that was already taken out.
David McAuley 2:We timed out - but good discussion, thanks Becky, Holly, Bernie, Brenda and all
Avri Doria:no need to wait a week, there are empty meeting slots on the CCWG schedules
Becky Burr:Malcolm, could you drop me a note about your additional agenda item
David McAuley 2:I can give an example about the word evidence
Malcolm Hutty:@Staff support (minutes) please note that Becky accepted my proposal for a fourth agenda item
David McAuley 2:ok Becky
David McAuley 2:Bye all
Olga Cavalli:thanks regards
