[IOT] [Ext] Re: IOT - Agenda for 17 Nov call 17:00 UTC

Tue Nov 17 17:15:06 UTC 2020

Thanks Flip.  Your clarification is appreciated.

From: Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 9:10 AM
To: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>, Susan Payne <susan.payne at comlaude.com>, Malcolm Hutty <Malcolm at linx.net>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>, "iot at icann.org" <iot at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [IOT] IOT - Agenda for 17 Nov call 17:00 UTC

I think a word is missing in point 6

The iRPs are not solely about …

Flip

Flip Petillion
fpetillion at petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion at petillion.law>
+32484652653
www.petillion.law

[id:image001.png at 01D3691D.DA7539C0][petillion.law]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.petillion.law/__;!!PtGJab4!qsfERySOhQa0tb5V1T_TLpw6JgZhJrmmu_9cIh5ZywiV4vceEunFMAfcAf6WFl9UzuNRcNr0oA$>

  Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats

From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 17 November 2020 at 17:59
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at comlaude.com>, Malcolm Hutty <Malcolm at linx.net>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>, "iot at icann.org" <iot at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IOT] IOT - Agenda for 17 Nov call 17:00 UTC

Looking forward to the conversation, and I have a few notes to share based on my initial read this morning:

  1.  ICANN does not need to give permission to any person or entity to file an IRP. That is a choice of the filer if they believe they have standing (i.e., meet all the prerequisites of alleging a proper dispute under the Bylaws and they suffered harm, etc.).  ICANN also does not direct filers on what they can or cannot say in their IRP filing.
  2.  The issue of whether the IRP was timely filed is an issue for the panel to consider, and if ICANN believed that the IRP was not timely, it would surely note that issue in its filings.
  3.  Both of the items are premised on the ICANN community recommending and the Board accepting a program or policy that happens to actually be against mission.  As ICANN org has flagged before, if that is the initial premise, we have far bigger issues in ICANN or ICANN’s MSM than just the running of a singular policy or program.
  4.  Both of the scenarios could reasonably set out a timely filing of an IRP based on a specific implementation decision as raised by ICANN.  The issue we have been discussing with the IOT is whether an aggrieved person or entity can come, years down the road and with no new action by ICANN or the Board, to say that the decision that was taken years ago was improper.  That scenario is not presented by Malcolm’s new stress tests. (I am not opining on the content of the examples with this statement, just focusing on the timing).
  5.  If ICANN were declared to have violated its Bylaws as applied in either of those scenarios, the discussion about the future viability of the entirety of the program/policy would be a necessary discussion.  This seems to be the same outcome that would happen even if the initial decision was challenged, but the IRP would be based on fresh, recent facts and inputs.
  6.  As a reminder, the IRPs are not about delivering individual relief to an impacted entity.

Thanks,

Sam

From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Susan Payne <susan.payne at comlaude.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 7:46 AM
To: Malcolm Hutty <Malcolm at linx.net>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>, "iot at icann.org" <iot at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IOT] IOT - Agenda for 17 Nov call 17:00 UTC

Thanks Malcolm for these thoughtful examples.  I look forward to us discussing these later today during our meeting.

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +44 20 7421 8255
M: +44 7971 661175
E: susan.payne at comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne at comlaude.com>

From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
Sent: 17 November 2020 14:33
To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>; iot at icann.org
Subject: Re: [IOT] IOT - Agenda for 17 Nov call 17:00 UTC

Dear all,

Last meeting I took an action to construct some “Stress Test scenarios” on repose.
I have come up with two that I think demonstrate how repose undermines the purposes of the IRP in respect of the “limited mission” clause.

Please find attached.

Kind Regards,

Malcolm

From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org<mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: 16 November 2020 20:17
To: iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>
Subject: [IOT] IOT - Agenda for 17 Nov call 17:00 UTC

All,

Please find the agenda for this meeting below:

1.Review agenda and updates to SOIs
2. Action items from the last meeting:
• Staff – Prepare a scorecard to track progress vs major items.
• MH and others – Propose examples of issues with respect to Repose by email.
3. Update on consolidation sub-group meeting.
4. Continue discussions on the time for filing issue.
5. AOB
6. Next Meeting December 1, 19:00UTC

Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Support to the IOT

for

Susan Payne
Chair IOT
________________________________
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com__;!!PtGJab4!t-Ly92LpqtW18Iqzll_NxIwkLLmRM5zDKdGrZsLw2IAYuGjF6DId3_YFG2-TNykIXgtg977z-w$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20201117/cb60ce18/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7396 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20201117/cb60ce18/image001-0001.png>