[IOT] Agenda amd message re IRP IoT meeting #12 set for Dec. 16th at 13:00 UTC

Wed Dec 14 18:53:18 UTC 2016

Dear members of the IRP IoT:

Here is the proposed agenda for our call Friday at 13:00 UTC:

1.       Introduction/Roll/SOI

2.       Status of Timing issue (i.e. time within which to file claim)

3.       Handling of requests for independent legal advice by IRP IoT

4.       Comments forum (https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-irp-supp-procedures-28nov16/)

5.       Conceptualizing our work going forward

6.       AOB

With respect to agenda item #5, I am drawing from my e-mail to our team of Nov. 18 in the following comments (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2016-November/000106.html).

I think it would be a worthwhile discussion to have about our working methodology now that our work is turning from the (largely) design stage (designing rules of procedure) to what seems a more operational stage of working on implementing the new IRP.

In my mail of Nov. 18 was a compilation, as I see it, of the work remaining, noted again below with some questions then following:

Those in support of work where ICANN has the lead:

*         Tendering for IRP services "beginning by consulting the "IRP Implementation Oversight Team"" (Bylaw 4.3(j)(ii)(A))

*         Establishing a standing panel (we can notify SOs/ACs of their role (Bylaw 4.3(j)(ii))

*         Consider replies to comments on supplemental rules (comment period closes Jan 10 - we will need to consider amendments etc)

Those items calling for our consideration:

*         A recall process for removing members of the standing panel (Section 4.3(j)(iii)).

*         "Additional independence requirements" like term limits (a panelist term is five years) and restrictions on post-term appointment to other ICANN positions (Bylaw 4.3(q)).

*         Limits on appeals of IRP to full standing panel - Bylaw 4.3(w). The new supplemental rules don't set any limits. We might consider a limitation on appeals of non-binding IRPs - see 4.3(x)(iv) - are there others to consider?

*         Do we need any "operational rules"? - Annex 07, paragraph 44.2. One example I can think of is making sure that the IRP admin provider writes to parties encouraging them to try to narrow issues in a filed IRP ("Conciliation" - 4.3(h)). We should consider whether we want to suggest operational rules.

*         How to work through footnotes in supplemental rules as a double check measure.

*         Specify procedures if ICANN elects not to respond to an IRP (4.3(n)(iv)(F)). Section 4.3(g) appears to have resolved this - is anything else needed? Should we insert in rules?

*         Clarifying, if we think needed, that EC claims to IRP are subject to additional timing provisions of Bylaw 4.7 (Mediation) and Annex D, Article 4, Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

Those items calling for drafting work:

*         Specialized rules of procedure relative to reviews of PTI service complaints - Bylaw 4.3(n)(ii). Write to direct customers asking for input?