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

Wed Sep 7 18:28:21 UTC 2016

I am confused whether we are talking about possibility of witnesses in all
hearings (including telephonic), or only in live hearings?  I am not aware
of any arbitration scheme that limits witnesses only to "exceptional
circumstances."  It seems the main purported justification for that
position is cost of flying in witnesses, so only is germane to live
hearings -- so for telephonic hearings, witnesses should be allowed if not
routinely, then upon a demonstration of need... but not only in
"exceptional circumstances."  Witnesses are needed at times to explain
ambiguities or omissions in the documents, and should not generally be
limited only to "exceptional circumstances" in routine telephonic hearings.

And to finish the point, if there are witnesses, then they must be subject
to cross-examination in all cases.  I think we have consensus at least on
that?

One actual case where ICANN's witness clearly proved critical to the panel
was the .Africa decision.  That was a live hearing.  Would Heather Dryden's
testimony have been allowed under this "exceptional circumstances" test?
If not, then the test is too stringent.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
wrote:

> Fine for me.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>             +216 52 385 114
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
>
> Le 7 sept. 2016 à 12:53, Marianne Georgelin <marianne.georgelin at afnic.fr>
> a écrit :
>
> I'm also ok with that.
>
> Marianne
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *De: *"Thomas Rickert" <thomas at rickert.net>
> *À: *"Christopher Disspain" <chris at disspain.id.au>
> *Cc: *iot at icann.org
> *Envoyé: *Mercredi 7 Septembre 2016 12:11:13
> *Objet: *Re: [IOT] Summary Discussion thread #4 - please review and
> respond.
>
> Same here!
>
> Thomas
>
> Am 07.09.2016 um 08:07 schrieb Christopher Disspain <chris at disspain.id.au
> >:
>
> Works for me also.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 6 Sep 2016, at 17:15, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>
> So that is consistent with the McAuley view – witnesses in “extraordinary
> circumstances only” evaluated on a witness by witness basis.  I am likewise
> ok with that.  Would love to hear from others
>
>
> *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: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 11:08 AM
> To: Marianne Georgelin <marianne.georgelin at afnic.fr>
> Cc: "iot at icann.org" <iot at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [IOT] Summary Discussion thread #4 - please review and
> respond.
>
> I'm not sure how this fits into the alternatives, but I assume "argument
> only" means no witnesses at all.  I'm okay with that, except in exceptional
> circumstances.  However, if witnesses are going to be used, they should be
> subject to questions from both sides (whether that follows common-law
> principles of cross-examination is another question, perhaps).  Allowing
> one party to put on witnesses to make statements (whether in response to
> friendly questions or otherwise) most favorable to that party without
> allowing the other party to question those witnesses (within certain
> parameters) is inherently unfair.
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Marianne Georgelin <
> marianne.georgelin at afnic.fr> wrote:
>
>> 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 :)
>>
>> Marianne
>>
>> [image: AFNIC]
>>
>>
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afnic.fr_&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=x2xkkRAdZYEaSa0tp1VnBaPdq7jSe8-tbR3WZRkCV1E&e=>Marianne
>> *GEORGELIN* <marianne.georgelin at afnic.fr>
>> *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
>> France
>>
>>
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afnic.fr_&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=x2xkkRAdZYEaSa0tp1VnBaPdq7jSe8-tbR3WZRkCV1E&e=>
>>
>>
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_afnic.fr&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=m7_MCH3fzZ3Ey8T5KBx9Ck35cStdG3xzpVR04m3gJys&e=>
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_afnic&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=e9Bf53KaRkhg4p4t4sTufATyLUJGPIraOAX-h2L3MY8&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *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.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> 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
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JAVASCRIPT-2DBLOCKED-3B&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=FZUNU6-DSxedz0-1Qqk3-eipUo6CTUyuQ_qI8H1sXsI&e=>>
>>> 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
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JAVASCRIPT-2DBLOCKED-3B&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=FZUNU6-DSxedz0-1Qqk3-eipUo6CTUyuQ_qI8H1sXsI&e=>
>>> >> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JAVASCRIPT-2DBLOCKED-3B&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=FZUNU6-DSxedz0-1Qqk3-eipUo6CTUyuQ_qI8H1sXsI&e=>
>>> >>
>>> >> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:33 PM
>>> >> To: "iot at icann.org
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JAVASCRIPT-2DBLOCKED-3B&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=FZUNU6-DSxedz0-1Qqk3-eipUo6CTUyuQ_qI8H1sXsI&e=>
>>> <mailto:iot at icann.org
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JAVASCRIPT-2DBLOCKED-3B&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=FZUNU6-DSxedz0-1Qqk3-eipUo6CTUyuQ_qI8H1sXsI&e=>>"
>>> <iot at icann.org
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JAVASCRIPT-2DBLOCKED-3B&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=FZUNU6-DSxedz0-1Qqk3-eipUo6CTUyuQ_qI8H1sXsI&e=>
>>> >> <mailto:iot at icann.org
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JAVASCRIPT-2DBLOCKED-3B&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=FZUNU6-DSxedz0-1Qqk3-eipUo6CTUyuQ_qI8H1sXsI&e=>
>>> >>
>>> >> 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=http-3A__JAVASCRIPT-2DBLOCKED-3B&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=FZUNU6-DSxedz0-1Qqk3-eipUo6CTUyuQ_qI8H1sXsI&e=>
>>> >>
>>> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>>> 3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> >>_listinfo_iot&d=DQIFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=
>>> 62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8T
>>> >>jDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=sbS_aakD5nSu1swQzbmD5ZjtnfgPQAgMNZ
>>> 4ADJo9r1o&s=3VHa
>>> >>4rlrU6d0JqTZ8oEopjW_zjea53G5X5RqVQDwvOc&e=
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >             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
>>> >_&d=DQIFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_
>>> GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W
>>> >DDkMr4k&m=sbS_aakD5nSu1swQzbmD5ZjtnfgPQAgMNZ
>>> 4ADJo9r1o&s=38duUllBvJ2m3i6Ngo
>>> >X04TRv91L3etqjPDQ33jz7Xak&e=
>>> >
>>> >                  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
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JAVASCRIPT-2DBLOCKED-3B&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=FZUNU6-DSxedz0-1Qqk3-eipUo6CTUyuQ_qI8H1sXsI&e=>
>>> 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=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=NQogyn-9D9duaAt1HWgRxG238QxrDIzltjxQAN2736I&e=>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IOT mailing list
>> 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=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=NQogyn-9D9duaAt1HWgRxG238QxrDIzltjxQAN2736I&e=>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IOT mailing list
>> 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=9FBbX1IEsk8dsO0eT-k5uLzR44gzyKwOGWyW3dDB1q4&s=NQogyn-9D9duaAt1HWgRxG238QxrDIzltjxQAN2736I&e=>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20160907/2e3245df/attachment-0001.html>