[IOT] Possible work remaining for IOT

[Nigel Roberts]

I will also be an apology for todays meeting due to a clash.





On 20/07/2021 14:42, Flip Petillion via IOT wrote:
> 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:
> 
>  
> 
>       o */Subjectto 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
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>