[IOT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for IRP-IOT Meeting #14 - 09 February 2017
mssi-secretariat at icann.org
Fri Feb 10 02:13:48 UTC 2017
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP-IOT Meeting #14 | 09 February 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/N4PRAw
A copy of the notes may be found below.
Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst.
ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: yvette.guigneaux at icann.org
NOTES (Including relevant portions of the chat):
David McAuley: No audio only, no changes to SOIs. One observer Jay Sudowski - given there are no objections from the participants JS may observe only.
2. Rapporteur report:
a. Letters sent;
b. Contact with ICANN staff.
David McAuley: letters not out yet, few changes coming re Elise G suggestions. Re ICANN staff. Would ask SE to comment on current plans for the EOI re potential member of the panel.
Samantha Eisner: Working internally on this. Our timeframe to provide this to the IOT prior to Copenhagen. Looking forward to receiving input from IOT on this.
David McAuley: is there a need for an RFP for administrative support for IRP?
Samantha Eisner: we do not see a need for this at this point. This can be done at any time. When the rest of elements are lined up we can consider this. We will be asking the ICDR to review the updated supplementary rules to ensure they are not in conflict with the ICANN bylaws or beyond their capacity. We have been considering this internally and do not expect any issues but there is a need to verify.
Kavouss Arasteh: no problem with observers to listen only. combination of the letters - why combine?
David McAuley: am contemplating putting them together for efficiency
3. Comments forum:
a. Process discussion - suggested ways to address comments:
ii. Small groups?
iii. Lead member per comment?
iv. Lead member per topic?
Bernard Turcotte: Proposed process, the group could discuss the timing issues and assign the lesser issues to individuals to report to the group.
Malcolm Hutty: Bernard proposal: exactly as I would have suggested
avri doria: i think the more online tools are used the better. know it is not possible for all, but dealing with static docs is just a miserable way to go unless some one person is always in edit mode.
b. Substantive reviews:
i. Timing for filing claims. c. Work on list.
David McAuley: DM document ("Time for filing issues") Sidley has advised that as originally constructed there was an issue and suggested new text. Upon reading wondered if this was the solution. The Richard Hill seemed an interesting option of Facial vs AsApplied. If we pick a date from "being aware of material harm" we could resolve all issues?
Malcolm Hutty: Internally in Lynx there was significant concern how these timing recommendations come about given they have not been supported by our own external counsel. Our (IOT) approach seems to be wrong - we are open vs a moratorium but we need to be more formal and consistent consideration vs timing.
Samantha Eisner: I do not agree that there was any confirmation by Sidley that anything was proffered that was against ICANN's internal rules. The question that was posed to Sidley was whether the draft supplemental rules allowed for "facial invalidity", and they concurred with ICANN's position that the draft supplemental rules did not there was no statement from Sidley that the IOT or ICANN were violating the CCWG Proposal. Nonetheless, I agree with Malcolm that if we are to change the timing from what was posted in public comment, that needs to have a well-engaged conversation
Kavouss Arasteh: Are we talking about changing what timings?
David McAuley: Yes we are discussing changing the timing based on public comments. As to the comment by MH - the rules we proposed by the IOT and we were trying to balance several factors to allow for certainty. With respect to the institutional concern there is a simple solution we need to reconsider the 45 days. As to a moratorium, re Business Constituency, "knew of or should or reasonably known of" if there are significant changes we will have to go to public consultation again. We should cover this via a discussion on the list.
Greg Shatan: We need to take into account the Empowered Community processes and SO/AC processes.
Malcolm Hutty: We cannot pick a time arbitrarily - we need to look at what the requirements are - as long is as long as necessary to not undermine the process.
Greg Shatan: We arrived at 45 days trying to find balance and the possibility of finality. 45 days may of been too short - we need to consider comments and the Empowered Community timelines as well as SOAC timelines. The multistakeholder process is slow and messy and our timing should be in line with this. Agree we need to be analytical but we cannot leave everything open for ever.
Samantha Eisner: IRPs are not always going to be brought by the EC or by the community
Becky Burr: I thought the 45 days was in the Recommendation and the Bylaws
Malcolm Hutty: The standard itself by which we pick the period needs to be grounded in the bylaws. Merely "in our judgement, it sounds like a reasonable period" is not. (also to Greg: repose is not grounded in the bylaws)
Greg Shatan: The timeframe needs to be grounded in pragmatic realities.
Kavous Arasteh: We have discussed timing for a long time and came to a solution. Maybe we need to ask if our group supports longer than 45 days?
David McAuley: MH are you suggesting there should be no time limit.
Malcolm Hutty: There should be a limit but it should be on a rolling basis.
Greg Shatan: We need to look at the Sidley recommendations and the comments. Its premature to have this conversation without us having read the comments.
Kavouss Arasteh: not comfortable with no limit. 45 days seemed reasonable.
Malcolm Hutty: @Greg, I do agree on that, we should now look to the comments. This is discussion is merely introductory
Greg Shatan: @Malcolm, can you clarify what you mean by no fixed time, rolling basis?
Malcolm Hutty: What I meant was, it must be calculated relative to the time the harm crystallised, and knowledge appeared, not fixed relative to the action complained of
David McAuley: obviously, timing will be the big issue. MH and myself could pick this up (timing) to push this on list.
Malcolm Hutty: @David, I am very happy to volunteer, as you suggest/request
Greg Shatan: Isn't it now based on when the claimant becomes aware? Or is it the 12 month drop dead date you are referring to?
Malcolm Hutty: @greg I was referring to dropping the 12 month drop dead date
Greg Shatan: @Malcolm, thanks; got it.
Kavouss Arasteh: need to recommend things to the group.
Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly note that we should not drop the upper time limit at all
David McAuley: Next meeting 2 March 1300UTC.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IOT