[IOT] Considerations for Rule 7

[Susan Payne]

Liz, thanks for this useful set of principles that we should try to progress agreement on during our upcoming call.

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 Elizabeth Le
Sent: 08 September 2020 15:38
To: iot at icann.org
Subject: [IOT] Considerations for Rule 7

Dear IOT members,

Prior to considering specific line edits as proposed on Rule 7, we propose that we consider some of the principles behind the proposed edits, to make sure that IOT concurs on the need for, purpose and intended impact of the changes.  Below are some of the topics we noted for discussion from Susan’s strawperson, and some questions that were raised for us at ICANN org during our review.


  1.  Role of Procedure Officer.  Are we updating the role of Procedures Officer?  If so, how?
  2.  Page Limitation.  We will remove the collective page limitation (confirmed).
  3.  Timing for Motion for Consolidation, Intervention and Participation as an Amicus.  What is the timeframe for seeking consolidation or intervention?  Is there a different timeframe for requests to participate as an amicus?
  4.  Additional Procedure Needed? Do we need to have additional procedural steps detailed?  If so, what are the procedural steps that are missing?
·       Do we need to detail out, as Susan suggests, required elements of the request?
·       Should we be clearer in this Rule 7 about the types of considerations that are important for upholding the purposes of the IRP, and are there specific “purposes of the IRP” that we should specifically call out? For example, because IRP proceedings are binding, possibility of conflicting rulings or a race to a ruling that would render a separately pending IRP moot could be a factor that would tend toward consolidation.  Are there factors that might go against consolidation? Or other items that might support?

  1.  IRP Panel Recomposition: Susan’s strawperson suggests specific language regarding the possibility of changing the IRP Panel as a result of consolidation or intervention.  Outside of conflict of interest concerns that adding a new party to a proceeding might add, are there other scenarios where the IOT believes that it is appropriate to consider replacing an existing IRP Panel?  From the ICANN org view, the more time that is allowed to pass between the initiation of the first IRP and filing for consolidation or intervention, the more important it becomes to have defined expectations and limitations on seeking a new Panel.  From the ICANN org side, we’d recommend a very narrow set of circumstances (likely only conflict of interest related) for panel replacement orders. To the extent re-empanelment is required, from ICANN org we’d recommend reliance in full on Rule 3 instead of creating a new appointment path, while also concurring on the exclusion of the PROCEDURES OFFICER from that new IRP Panel. Some other considerations could include:
·       What would happen with issues already decided in the IRP by the “prior” panel?
·       Who is responsible for the cost of bringing a second panel up to speed?
·       How are the parties impacted in their legal spend?

  1.  Scope of Intervening Claimant Filings: On Intervention, the IOT might wish to consider if limitations on the scope of the proposed intervening claim are appropriate.  Should intervention be limited only to those tailored to the issues already in DISPUTE, given that IRPs are not about delivering relief to particular entities, but are about challenging ICANN violations of Bylaws/Articles?
  2.  Amicus as of Right: Susan’s strawperson proposes a new classification of persons allowed Amicus status as of right.  Does the IOT agree that we need additional categories here, as there is already discretion?  If so, what is the proper scope for addition, and can it be quantified or measured objectively?
  3.  Reduction of Duplication: As a drafting note, for areas of similar process as between any of the subparts of Rule 7, we can explore how to reduce duplication of concept as between each subpart.

Best regards,
Liz


Elizabeth D. Le
Associate General Counsel, ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
Direct Dial:  +1 310 578 8902




________________________________
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 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF 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<https://comlaude.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20200908/2b1c1170/attachment-0001.html>