[IOT] Possible work remaining for IOT

Flip Petillion fpetillion at petillion.law
Tue Jul 20 13:42:40 UTC 2021


All :
I’ll not be able to join you today. But I will listen to the recording.
Best
Flip



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

[id:image001.png at 01D3691D.DA7539C0]<https://www.petillion.law/>

  Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats


From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "McAuley, David via IOT" <iot at icann.org>
Reply to: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com>
Date: Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:20
To: "iot at icann.org" <iot at icann.org>
Subject: [IOT] Possible work remaining for IOT

Dear IOT colleagues,

Susan asked us to note any work items that we think remain to be done. In my personal opinion, these are possible tasks remaining beyond those mentioned by Susan on the last call:



  *   To develop a recall process relating to members of the standing panel – see Bylaw 4.3(j)(iii);



  *   To consider the development of additional independence requirements for members of the standing panel, including term limits and restrictions on post-term appointment to other ICANN positions – see Bylaw 4.3(q)(i)(B) on conflicts of interests of members of the standing panel;



  *   Do we want to establish ‘limitations’ on appeals? – see Bylaw 4.3(w) which states:



     *   Subject to any limitations established through the Rules of Procedure, an IRP Panel decision may be appealed to the full Standing Panel sitting en banc within sixty (60) days of issuance of such decision.



o   One possible limitation which I think we may want to consider is whether non-binding IRPs (see Bylaw 4.3(x)(iv)) should be appealable.



o   Additionally, in this respect, is it within our remit to consider whether non-binding IRPs should constitute precedent?



  *   Is there ambiguity regarding a standing panel’s ability to ‘adjudicate’ a stay of ICANN action or just to ‘recommend’ a stay? See Bylaws 4.3(o) and 4.3(p). If there is ambiguity, is there anything within our remit to help clarify?



  *   Finally, with respect to the Rule 4 (Time for Filing) issue that we are currently discussing,  should we clarify that the rule we eventually develop is either an affirmative defense that ICANN can raise, or not, as it sees fit or, alternatively, a firm matter of standing that the panel should invoke on its own without exemption, subject only to the savings language that Sam and Liz are working on?
Best regards,
David

David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20210720/2e388df7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7395 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20210720/2e388df7/image001-0001.png>


More information about the IOT mailing list