[IOT] materials for call later today

[Burr, Becky]

Kavouss,

ICANN proposed a “clear and convincing” standard of proof.  In order to understand how that would operate, the group needs to know what that means – and it does have a very specific meaning under US jurisprudence.  Moreover, we do not necessarily want to invoke that meaning in the IRP context.  Accordingly, I thought it was important for the group to understand how that language “clearly and convincingly” or “clearly” or “convincingly” might be interpreted by a panelist.

I believe that on the call today most people believed that the language should be dropped altogether to avoid invoking a US-centric standard.  Rather, the feeling was that it should be left to the panel to determine  whether or not the requestor had demonstrated the three criteria (necessary for just resolution, necessary to further purpose of IRP, and not outweighed by cost and delay) to its satisfaction.

I think this is the appropriate outcome to avoid invoking the jurisprudence of a specific country.

Becky

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 6:07 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
Cc: "iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>" <iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [IOT] materials for call later today

Beckie
Sorry I was absent during the call as I was travelling
I understand you based all discussion on US practice AS YOU MENTIONED

Quote

Specifies which standard of proof the Party must follow in presen>ng

evidence to the panel - the amount of evidence the Party needs to

provide in order for the Panel to reach a par>cular determina>on.

• In US civil cases, usually 3 choices, with escala>ng requirements:

• Preponderance of evidence

• Clear and convincing evidence

• Substan>al evidence (usually limited to administra>ve maSers NA here)

Unquote

What happend then

Tks

Kavouss

2016-08-17 19:43 GMT+02:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>:

We will work from the slides
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office:+1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>  Mobile:+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>/neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

_______________________________________________
IOT mailing list
IOT at icann.org<mailto:IOT at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iot&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=xO7HIY--YmA44b8dUAqkWk5zjUKZYdW7yIZDpGoZZnE&s=-7Bkqw73yjpNgBiOEsmuVurLqATwKIxDcuKQGz37PqQ&e=>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20160817/3851a710/attachment-0001.html>