[IOT] Summary Discussion thread #4 - please review and respond.

Marianne Georgelin marianne.georgelin at afnic.fr
Tue Sep 6 08:03:26 UTC 2016

Dear all, 

I'm catching up on all your comments to add my 2 (euros) cents on thread #4 discussion. 
On the cross-examination matter, my preference goes to Alt. 1 (All hearings shall be limited to argument only). 
As David said earlier, this procedure should remain a simplified arbitration aimed at quick and cost effective outcomes. 
According to me, witness cross-examination will not fit this purpose. 
First of all, it seems that this procedure would entail important costs in terms of translation (for non english speaking witnesses), travel and lawyer fees. 
Moreover, the fact that lawyers have to be familiar with common law cross-examination procedures may prevent people from civil law countries to easily find representation in their home countries. 

Bonne journée :) 


Responsable des Politiques de Registre 
Senior Policy Manager 

marianne.georgelin at afnic.fr 
Mob +33 (0) 6 30 15 19 09 

Tel +33 (0) 1 39 30 83 09 
Skype / m.georgelin 

Immeuble Le Stephenson 
1, rue stephenson 
78180 Montigny le Bretonneux 

----- Mail original -----

De: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 
À: "Becky Burr" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> 
Cc: iot at icann.org 
Envoyé: Mardi 30 Août 2016 06:59:39 
Objet: Re: [IOT] Summary Discussion thread #4 - please review and respond. 

I assume cross-examination to mean questioning by the opposing counsel, not the panel. 

I would also assume the panel can always question a witness whether or not they grant the opposing counsel the right to cross-examination. 

I have not read any IRP transcripts so I don't know how witnesses are handled. In a US civil matter, the witnesses are typically questioned by the side putting them up ("direct") and then opposing counsel ("cross"). Questions from the bench are unusual. Is that how IRPs work, or is it a situation where the panel does a lot of questioning of the witness? If it's the former, Malcolm's thoughts about the panel's reasoning would not seem on target. 

All that said, if there is a hearing with witnesses, I strongly believe that opposing counsel should always have the right to question them. 


On Monday, August 29, 2016, Burr, Becky < Becky.Burr at neustar.biz > wrote: 

Thanks Malcolm. The standard for telephonic hearings is far short of the 
³extraordinary circumstances² test (Currently reads ³if necessary² but 
Mike Rodenbaugh has proposed lowering that.) How would you approach 
witness cross examination in that situation? 

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 > 

On 8/29/16, 4:36 PM, "Malcolm Hutty" < malcolm at linx.net > wrote: 

>On 29/08/2016 16:15, Burr, Becky wrote: 
>> David McAuley has weighed in to support application of the 
>> ³extraordinary circumstances² test to BOTH the question of whether or 
>> not an in-person hearing is held AND to whether cross examination is 
>> permitted. I know others have different views but not hearing them yet 
>> on these emails. 
>I would have thought that the most obvious reason why the Panel would 
>think it necessary to hold a hearing in person would be because they 
>wanted the opportunity to examine a witness. So setting up a two-stage 
>test (once to allow a hearing, and a second to allow examination of a 
>witness) would seem to defeat the most likely purpose. 
>I recognise ICANN's concern about the cost of flying in witnesses 
>(especially if contractors rather than staff, such as EIU). But the 
>"extraordinary circumstances test" already sets a very high bar, so I 
>think this concern is already protected; I don't see what more we can 
>reasonably do other than prohibit witnesses altogether, and I do feel 
>very uncomfortable about telling the Panel "Even if you feel it 
>essential to achieve a fair outcome, and if you believe the failure to 
>hear this witness fundamentally undermines the purpose of the IRP, you 
>still may not hear them". 
>I suppose it's also worth noting that witnesses are not compelled. If a 
>party feels that producing their witness is too expensive, they don't 
>have to do so. This may put them at a disadvantage if the other party 
>has a compelling witness that needs answering, but it's their choice. 
>But this isn't an issue I want to die in a ditch over, if others disagree. 
>> *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: <Burr>, Becky Burr < becky.burr at neustar.biz 
>> <mailto: becky.burr at neustar.biz >> 
>> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:33 PM 
>> To: " iot at icann.org <mailto: iot at icann.org >" < iot at icann.org 
>> <mailto: iot at icann.org >> 
>> Subject: [IOT] Discussion thread #4 (and the last one!) 
>> The current draft provides: 
>> "All hearings shall be limited to argument only." 
>> This would generally prohibit cross examination of witnesses. There 
>> appear to be a number of views among the IOT. Several members think 
>> that cross examination of witnesses should be permitted as a matter of 
>> course, assuming in the case of F2F hearings, that the extraordinary 
>> circumstances standard has been met. In that case, all we need do is 
>> drop the language above. 
>> Others think that cross-examination should be permitted on a 
>> case-by-case basis and only where the requesting party demonstrates that 
>> the requested cross-examination would meet the 3 part test for 
>> ³extraordinary circumstances.² The following language would accomplish 
>> that 
>> [unless the IRP Panel determines that the party seeking cross 
>> examination of [a] witness[es] has demonstrated that such cross 
>> examination is: (1) necessary for a fair resolution of the 
>> claim; (2) necessary to further the PURPOSES OF THE IRP; /and/ 
>> (3) considerations of fairness and furtherance of the PURPOSES 
>> OF THE IRP outweigh the time and financial expense of witness 
>> cross examination.] 
>> ICANN continues to have serious concerns about the cost and delay 
>> associated with cross examination of witnesses. 
>> *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 > 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> IOT mailing list 
>> IOT at icann.org 
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman 
> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 
> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog 
> London Internet Exchange | 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net 
> London Internet Exchange Ltd 
> Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ 
> Company Registered in England No. 3137929 
> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA 

IOT mailing list 
IOT at icann.org 

IOT mailing list 
IOT at icann.org 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20160906/459fc4e7/attachment.html>

More information about the IOT mailing list