[IOT] IOT - Regular meeting Tuesday January 19th, 2021 17:00 UTC

Tue Jan 19 15:57:11 UTC 2021

Greetings All,

I note that we have on our agenda the item of continuing our review and discussion on public comment on repose. If that is agreed as a useful way forward then so be it but I want to say a couple of things and thought it might be easier to put them in writing especially as I may arrive late to the call.

In essence I think we should be having a substantive discussion about Flip’s note from 7 December and the issue of IRP claims that a policy is ultra vires.

For me there is little to be gained by a close examination of the comments. Parsing them to ascertain exactly what they might or might not mean will not assist me or change my view. I have read them, understand them and completely respect that XX of them were against 12 month repose and agree with the removal of the 12 month repose in the second public comment. 

My view is that the problem of when one can bring a claim and about what is a complicated one which is not solved by a yes or no answer. It’s more nuanced than that and I think Malcolm’ excellent examples are a useful tool to explain what I mean. I’ve attached Malcom's document here to assist.

Quoting from Scenario 1

"The ICANN Legal office advises that EduTania may bring an IRP case against ICANN for how it has chosen to implement the 5-by-5-by-5 programme in Ruritania, and whether it has complied with the original Board decision and established procedures. This may even extend to challenging the decision to select Ruritania as a target country in year 5. However, a challenge to the 5-by-5-by-5 programme itself is, ICANN Legal asserts, out of time: that needed to be brought within 120 days of the Board originally establishing the programme."   

I have no problem with EduTania having the right to bring an IRP in respect to the introduction in Ruritania. In fact, I would have no problem even if they sought to bring a claim regarding their Ruritania issue 3 years after the scheme arrived in Ruritania provided they meet the time to file requirement. But I have a real issue with them being able to bring a community policy to an IRP and seek a declaration as to it being ultra vires 5 years after it has been implemented.

This for me is the crux of the issue and I believe that if the community were asked whether it should be possible for any person or organisation to bring such a claim, we would receive different responses from those in the previous public comment rounds. 

If we believe that the fundamental basis of a policy duly arrived at by the community and duly implemented by ICANN should be open to question once it is operational then there should be a community based mechanism for the community to reconsider the policy. What should not happen is that an appointed panel is given the right to make a binding decision on that issue.

Unless I have misunderstood, I believe that the circumstances I have clumsily attempted to outline above sit at the centre of Flip’s suggested solution which I take to be, in laymen’s terms, repose should not apply where the remedy sought is ‘personal’ to the claimant but should apply where the remedy sought affects the whole community. 

I believe this group has already acknowledged that some areas should not be the subject of IRP (delegation of TLDs being one if I remember correctly) so perhaps we could usefully pursue this.

Cheers,

Chris Disspain
chris at disspain.uk

+44 7880 642456

> On 18 Jan 2021, at 19:52, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Proposed agenda;
>  
> 
> 1.Review agenda and updates to SOIs
> 2. Action items from the last meeting:
> 
> All - review the public comment input from both public comment periods on the topic of the repose
> Staff – Prepare a scorecard to track progress vs major items.
> 3. Brief update on consolidation sub-group meeting.
> 
> 4. Continue discussions on the time for filing issue:
> 
> Review and discuss public comment input on the repose (prong 2) – IOT members should attend the meeting prepared to identify, for discussion, those comments that they consider to be meaningful n this topic
> Time permitting, begin discussion and review public comment input on time for filing from the date Claimant knew/ought reasonably to have known (prong 1)
> 5. AOB
> 
> 6. Next Meeting  - Tuesday 2 February 1900 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bernard Turcotte
> 
> ICANN Support to the IOT
> 
> 
> 
> For
> 
> Susan Payne
> 
> Chair IOT
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
> 
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20210119/ee28fff4/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 12586 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20210119/ee28fff4/PastedGraphic-2-0001.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20210119/ee28fff4/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IIOT-Meeting-20201006-DAIRs.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19945 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20210119/ee28fff4/IIOT-Meeting-20201006-DAIRs-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20210119/ee28fff4/attachment-0005.html>