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

Sun Jan 24 21:34:56 UTC 2021

Dear All, Thank you for your  comments
We need to focus on timing  namely 12 months while taking into account
purely exceptional cases in which more time beyond 12 months is needed.
As for Filp's suggestion ,while I fully appreciate the valuable Information
provided but still there are several unanswered questions.
1.  It is hard to start another round of in-depth studies about the three
scenarios .
 However, it is difficult tobe convinced that it does exclude the
modification of Bylaws .
If it could eventually requires change of Bylaws, I am not in favour of and
further steps
2.  If it exclude change of Bylaws ,any major departure from the initial
timing which was put to public comments requires additional one or even 2
public comments
3.Receiving comprehensive replies from those one or two public comments
require another comprehensive analysis
4. Why for the things that could be easily mitigate the difficulties
brought by public comments we need to totally open new avenue.
5. The task of this group should not be extended to be a research approach
.I therefore do not agree to even study the  appropriateness of a new
approach
6.lLet us be practical/ pragmatic and avoid complicating the matter
Regards
Kavouss

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 6:10 PM Kristina Rosette <krosette at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> During our consolidation group call, I agreed with and supported Helen's
> suggestion that we examine and refine the concept of "amicus" as reflected
> in Rule 7.  Although I have always substituted "intervenor" for  amicus
> curiae while reading that rule, I also agree that modifying to "intervenor"
> may be too restrictive.
>
> Finally, with apologies, I have a conflicting personal obligation so am
> unable to join the call.
>
> Kristina
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:56 AM Lee, Helen via IOT <iot at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> During the consolidation subgroup meeting last week, I raised a point
>> regarding amicus participation in IRPs, which some of us agreed would
>> greatly benefit from discussion with the larger group. Accordingly, I have
>> outlined my points below for discussion:
>>
>>
>>
>> In the minds of most, including international arbitrators and at least US
>> based lawyers, “amicus” suggests a limited role that may be inconsistent
>> with what is fair in a particular dispute, or may be inconsistent with due
>> process. Indeed, the term “amicus” has specific meaning in the law;
>> traditionally, amici are given very limited participation, whether in court
>> or arbitration. While I am unclear regarding the limitations of the ICANN
>> process associated with changing the term “amicus” itself, assume for
>> purposes of illustration that we call “amicus” instead “Interested Entity.”
>> Interested Entity should be allowed a level of participation appropriate to
>> how its interests may be affected by the outcome -- without the built in
>> bias standard plainly suggested by the term amicus. Indeed, a set of rules
>> that allows a serious impact on legal rights based on little participation
>> may, as a system, be a violation of due process and subject to being
>> stricken down.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rule 7 of the Interim Procedures define amicus as below:
>>
>>
>>
>> “Any person, group, or entity that has a material interest relevant to
>> the DISPUTE but does not satisfy the standing requirements for a CLAIMANT
>> set forth in the Bylaws may participate as an amicus curiae before an IRP
>> PANEL, subject to the limitations set forth below. Without limitation to
>> the persons, groups, or entities that may have such a material interest,
>> the following persons, groups, or entities shall be deemed to have a
>> material interest relevant to the DISPUTE and, upon request of person,
>> group, or entity seeking to so participate, shall be permitted to
>> participate as an amicus before the IRP PANEL…”
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-interim-supplementary-procedures-25oct18-en.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> The drafting history of Rule 7 (and others who participated in that
>> process can speak to it with far more authority than I may be able to)
>> indicates it is designed to accommodate broader third party involvement
>> than the expression “amicus curiae” is traditionally understood to include.
>> The Panel’s decision in Phase I of Afilias matter concluded “nature and
>> breadth of the amicus participation that should be afforded to the
>> Applicant Amici in this
>>
>> case – whether it be under the provisions of Rule 7, properly
>> interpreted, as an exercise of the Panel’s discretion under Section
>> 4.3(o)(v) of the Bylaws, or under relevant principles of international law”
>> should be “broadly accorded.”
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-afilias-panel-decision-phase-1-redacted-12feb20-en.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> While my argument is not that claims of amici should routinely equal
>> those of full intervenors, I may start the conversation by suggesting that
>> we devise a truly flexible standard for participation by the Interested
>> Entity. Would it be possible to build into these rules a concept that the
>> degree of participation should be flexible and encompass that participation
>> necessary fully to protect the rights and interests of the amici,
>> including, where appropriate to that end, the right fully to participate in
>> all proceedings as a party?  We could develop a standard for involvement by
>> an amicus that avoids the definition likely to be given the term absent an
>> express definition or standard. It would also be helpful to add a statement
>> that the category of participation is unique to the IRP process, given its
>> specific limitations, and therefore to be defined by the rules themselves
>> and not by reference to other forms of participation in courts or
>> arbitrations such as “amici.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Helen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Verisign]
>>
>> *Helen J. Lee*
>> Director and Senior Corporate Counsel
>> hjlee at Verisign.com
>>
>> t: 703-948-4242
>> 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190
>>
>> Verisign.com <http://www.verisigninc.com/>
>>
>> [image: Verisign™]
>>
>> This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
>> proprietary information and/or a privileged and confidential
>> attorney-client communication and/or attorney work product intended solely
>> for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise
>> disseminated to any other person without the prior written consent of the
>> sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
>> immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message
>> without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing
>> the contents herein.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of * Bernard Turcotte
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 18, 2021 2:52 PM
>> *To:* iot at icann.org
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [IOT] IOT - Regular meeting Tuesday January 19th,
>> 2021 17:00 UTC
>>
>>
>>
>> *Caution:* This email originated from outside the organization. Do not
>> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
>> the content is safe.
>>
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210124/af4c1171/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20210124/af4c1171/image002-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1589 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20210124/af4c1171/image001-0001.jpg>