[IOT] IRP IOT – moving toward second reading of JOINDER issue

[Mike Rodenbaugh]

I support this, thanks.

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

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, McAuley, David via IOT <iot at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear members of the IRP IOT:
>
>
>
> Here below is suggested language for second reading on the Joinder issue
> we have been discussing.
>
>
>
> I have deleted the word “endeavor” in paragraph #4 as requested by Kavouss
> but have maintained all-caps for PROCEDURES OFFICER inasmuch as that is how
> it appears in the draft rules.
>
>
>
> Please consider and agree on list or on next call (Nov. 14 at 19:00 UTC),
> or if you suggest a change please provide *specific language and
> rationale*.
>
>
>
> SUGGESTED JOINDER LANGUAGE:
>
>
>
> 1.     That only those persons/entities who participated in the underlying
> proceeding as a "party" receive notice from a claimant (in IRPs under Bylaw
> section 4.3(b)(iii)(A)(3)) of the full Notice of IRP and Request for IRP
> (including copies of all related, filed documents) contemporaneously with
> the claimant serving those documents on ICANN.
>
>
>
> 2.      That, subject to the following sentence, all such parties have a
> right to intervene in the IRP.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, a person or
> entity seeking to intervene in an IRP can only be granted “party” status if
> (1) that person or entity demonstrates that it meets the standing
> requirement to be a Claimant under the IRP at Section 4.3(b) of the ICANN
> Bylaws and as Defined within these Supplemental Procedures, or (2) that
> person or entity demonstrates that it has a material interest at stake
> directly relating to the injury or harm that is claimed by the Claimant to
> have been directly and causally connected to the alleged violation at issue
> in the Dispute*. *The timing and other aspects of intervention shall be
> managed pursuant to the applicable rules of arbitration of the ICDR except
> as otherwise indicated here. Subject to the preceding provisions in this
> paragraph, the manner in which this limited intervention right shall be
> exercised shall be up to the PROCEDURES OFFICER, who may allow such
> intervention through granting IRP-party status or by allowing such
> party(ies) to file amicus brief(s), as the PROCEDURES OFFICER determines in
> his/her discretion. An intervening party shall be subject to applicable
> costs, fees, expenses, and deposits provisions of the IRP as determined by
> the ICDR. An amicus may be subject to applicable costs, fees, expenses, and
> deposits provisions of the IRP as deemed reasonable by the PROCEDURES
> OFFICER.
>
>
>
>  3.            No interim relief that would materially affect an interest
> of any such amicus to an IRP can be made without allowing such amicus an
> opportunity to be heard on the requested relief in a manner as determined
> by the PROCEDURES OFFICER.
>
>
>
>  4.      In handling all matters of intervention, and without limitation
> to other obligations under the bylaws, the PROCEDURES OFFICER shall adhere
> to the provisions of Bylaw section 4.3(s) to the extent possible while
> maintaining fundamental fairness.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171023/02d4f5ff/attachment.html>