[IOT] Trying to coordinate Joinder comments

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Thu May 11 11:28:53 UTC 2017


Dear David,

I think your proposal on amici needs a little refinement, rather than
simply applying 4.3(r) to amici.

4.3(r) says that parties shall generally bear their own costs, but that
the IRP panel may shift costs to the losing party.

I agree that amici should bear their own costs. I do not believe amici
should be exposed to share in the costs in the event of cost shifting if
they support the losing side, nor should they benefit from a share in
the costs that are shifted if they are on the winning side.

For that matter, an amicus brief may not obviously be tied to other
"side". Amicus briefs can be purely informational, and they can often
support or oppose one aspect of a party's position (or the question at
issue) without taking any view on the core of the case or who should
prevail.

But even for amicus briefs that do clearly support one side, I think
they should be exempted from cost-shifting either to their benefit or to
their detriment.

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.

On 03/05/2017 21:21, McAuley, David via IOT wrote:
> Dear members of the IRP IOT,
> 
>  
> 
> For our call tomorrow at 19:00 UTC.
> 
>  
> 
> Attached are two brief slides with my thoughts on trying to coordinate
> disparate joinder comments.
> 
>  
> 
> Slide two mentions bylaw section 4.3(s) – which states this: “(s) An IRP
> Panel should complete an IRP proceeding expeditiously, issuing an early
> scheduling order and its written decision no later than six months after
> the filing of the Claim, except as otherwise permitted under the Rules
> of Procedure. The preceding sentence does not provide the basis for a
> Covered Action.”
> 
>  
> 
> And mentions bylaw 4.3(r) - which says this: “(r) ICANN shall bear all
> the administrative costs of maintaining the IRP mechanism, including
> compensation of Standing Panel members. Except as otherwise provided in
> Section 4.3(e)(ii), each party to an IRP proceeding shall bear its own
> legal expenses, except that ICANN shall bear all costs associated with a
> Community IRP, including the costs of all legal counsel and technical
> experts. Nevertheless, except with respect to a Community IRP, the IRP
> Panel may shift and provide for the losing party to pay administrative
> costs and/or fees of the prevailing party in the event it identifies the
> losing party's Claim or defense as frivolous or abusive.”
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
> David
> 
>  
> 
> David McAuley
> 
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
> 
> Verisign Inc.
> 
> 703-948-4154
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
> 


-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://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


More information about the IOT mailing list