[IOT] IRP-IOT action items/next steps on Initiation

Malcolm Hutty Malcolm at linx.net
Mon Dec 5 16:32:44 UTC 2022

Dear all,

David wrote:
Presumably, a prevailing party will make a claim for such costs or fees, the losing party will have an opportunity to challenge the claim, and we should trust the panel to make an appropriate ruling. I believe that here too they should act consistent with international arbitration norms (see also Bylaw 4.3(a)(viii)).

I think this notion that a prevailing party will have to claim for costs and fees, while typical for litigation in a court of law, is a big part of what the IRP was intended to avoid.

The idea was that ICANN would have an independent review process that claimants could access to resolve disputes. Nothing in the bylaws authorises ICANN (or its provider) to condition access this process on payment of fees, just as there is no suggestion that you have to pay to file a Request for Reconsideration or to use the services of the Ombudsman.

Moreover, in David's formulation, if a Claimant loses, then they're not the prevailing party and would not be able to claim for costs and fees. This is quite different to the bylaws requirement that ICANN pays the costs of the IRP, with them only being shifted when the claim was frivolous or vexatious.

David asserts that the bylaws language requiring ICANN to pay the costs of the IRP mechanism only applies to some intangible costs that form a 'mechanism' that somehow exclude the actual operation of that mechanism. I find that distinction artificial, a construct invented to support charging the Claimant, but without foundation in the bylaws.

We should always look to the Bylaws themselves to understand what is required.

David's assertion that the 'IRP mechanism' and the process of hearing a dispute are distinct is actually contradicted directly by the bylaws themselves: Bylaw 4.3(r) states quite explicitly that the fees of the panellists who hear the dispute are included in the definition of administrative costs. Yet these fees are incontrovertibly the cost of hearing one individual dispute. So any possible suggestion that the costs of hearing the dispute are outside the definition of "administrative costs" is directly excluded by the clear language of 4.3(r).

This notion of an IRP mechanism as being something other than the process of hearing disputes arises only because we keep using shorthand: we talk of "the IRP" and forget what the IRP actuall is. We need to look back to the bylaws definition of the IRP to see what the "IRP" really means.

Bylaws Article 4.3 (a) begins as follows:
" In addition to the reconsideration process described in Section 4.2, ICANN shall have a separate process for independent third-party review of Disputes (defined in Section 4.3(b)(iii)) alleged by a Claimant (as defined in Section 4.3(b)(i)) to be within the scope of the Independent Review Process ("IRP"). The IRP is intended to hear and resolve Disputes for the following purposes ("Purposes of the IRP"): [...]"

This is where IRP is defined: it is a defined term. It refers to "a separate process for independent third-party review of Disputes". Accordingly when 4.3(r) speaks of ICANN paying for the 'IRP mechanism', it is referring to "the process for independent third-party review of Disputes". The mechanism *is* the process: there is nothing else.

Bylaw 4.3(r) requires ICANN to pay for the process of those Disputes being reviewed. That is what 'IRP mechanism' means. Which is entirely consistent with everything else that is said in the Bylaws, including the Purposes.

Kind Regards,


 Malcolm Hutty | Executive Director, Legal and Policy
T: +44 7789 987 023 | www.linx.net<http://www.linx.net>

[cid:image006.png at 01D908C3.4290A180]
London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX)
c/o WeWork, 2 Minster Court, Mincing Lane London EC3R 7BB

Registered in England No. 3137929 at Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of McAuley, David via IOT
Sent: 05 December 2022 13:28
To: susan.payne at comlaude.com; iot at icann.org
Subject: Re: [IOT] IRP-IOT action items/next steps on Initiation

Thank you, Susan.

My thoughts are below since I need to send apologies for the meeting tomorrow. There is a conflicting meeting for the Community Representatives Group to nominate members of the IRP Standing Panel that I must attend.

With respect to the issue of filing-fee costs, Bylaw 4.3(r) indicates that ICANN will bear the administrative costs of maintaining the IRP mechanism. In my opinion that does not include a complainant's filing fee, which instead should be set (probably by ICDR) so as to conform to international arbitration norms (Bylaw 4.3(n)(i) and (ii)). Whatever is set as an initiation fee should not act as an unreasonable bar to filing complaints, I think, as that would probably not conform to such norms.

On other costs that might routinely apply, I think that we should ensure that a clear and easily findable link to the schedule of applicable fees on the ICDR website be available. It should not take the labors of Hercules to find these fees.

As for any other administrative costs and/or fees that might be shifted under Bylaw 4.3(r), I appreciate the thought you put into this as manifest in the google doc. But I tend to think it better not to try to anticipate/imagine such costs. Here, I think the principle in the bylaw is ok as written.

Presumably, a prevailing party will make a claim for such costs or fees, the losing party will have an opportunity to challenge the claim, and we should trust the panel to make an appropriate ruling. I believe that here too they should act consistent with international arbitration norms (see also Bylaw 4.3(a)(viii)).

Best wishes,

David McAuley
Policy Director
Verisign, Inc.

From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org<mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Susan Payne via IOT
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 5:01 PM
To: iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IOT] IRP-IOT action items/next steps on Initiation

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.
Hi all

On our last call, our discussion on initiation we pent much of our time focussed on the allocation of costs and fees, with reference to the language of Bylaws 4.3(r).  As a result of this, we had one action item for Sam, but also a task for all of us to try to give clarity for potential claimants on the costs they will be responsible for.

We also captured a useful suggestion to use flashes to indicate an updated section (as the UN do), with respect to the planned improvements to the IRP website area which have been anticipated for some time now.

Action items from our previous call
Sam to provide information on costs awards from pre-Transition (2016) IRPs, which may assist with this discussion

Action for us all
Irrespective of where we come out on the narrow issue of the IRP filing fee, Kavouss raised a point on our last call which I think resonated with most of the group.  Participants and potential participants of an IRP need to know what costs they will be responsible for.  This is directly relevant to initiation because potential Claimants to an IRP should be aware of what they are committing to when they make the decision to proceed.  If Bylaws 4.3(r) is ambiguous - which, based on our discussions, does seem to be the case - then we must give them this clarity.  Even if we cannot be exhaustive as to all possible costs, we should be able to identify sufficient examples to serve as a guide for participants on what types of costs will fall to them.

Below is a link to a Google Doc where I have started to capture types of costs that would likely be incurred in an IRP, and tried to identify who bears these costs, currently.  In order to make a start on this, I went back to the .WEB decision since this is a case decided under the new Bylaws and where there were some costs orders made, and I have included a footnote to explain where the costs addressed in that decision seem to give us some guidance.  As a result, for a few items I have indicated both that the Claimant initially paid and that this was later ordered to be reimbursed by ICANN. Indeed, the Claimant's filing fee, which we have been discussing at length, does appear to have been reimbursed in the .WEB case.


I am putting this forward to get the ball rolling.  I am sure that there will be other costs/fees that I have not thought about, and I hope that others in the group will add to this, particularly those who are practitioners. I would also welcome input from IOT members who disagree with my characterisation of any of these items.  I am not a practitioner so may inadvertently have mischaracterised something.

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy

[cid:image007.png at 01D908C3.4290A180]<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1_fqZwmD0LVUqv3bkbwC1oQie03MVXTMWHEHycrK_PG0ShzCIGzF_fBnDG9FjHcMDJN4tlr-YaWC22UStf69G24qky6m33hkrg8UFyxmHu083UmSChJqxoVaftc-peBFVUXLq9IuI2a6LbqCnig1Ok7zRLWrxAdo5oB1VxYGKOCfxtJjmpHi5szn42EkVleM7OvIZstWxrm3gJ7OXAL4GZT1nYmPa5qZEdSBPPGU_3d2ghm7fVJu7M_3UQFARqsSOv2sT1puZvoZp9KrUEedYpZOlcATRfp3eQCoI8TO6fhs/https%3A%2F%2Fcomlaude.com%2F>

28-30 Little Russell Street,
London WC1A 2HN, UK
T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
Ext 255


[cid:image008.png at 01D908C3.4290A180]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> [cid:image009.png at 01D908C3.4290A180] <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ZeiC_pAMsTw0Kc0K383TCPjqjtkiut1kbAMTKQKv7mQY6KE_h1XmPQhhfHyegNg6C8JP8c_amE229wdPgaoapV_3NjEt5f0u1bNU5efDx2ZuSwnL1THPAgkGzAIN8UxwjUM7swLtEAWdXR9d5Ba3EhiP3lgcEXvErqYVeZXxs5lgy6YYZRsTWf8E-c7bHYV2k-o4aohWwLPwj6opX0yVZD0Z-406ASTW1_VzobZKHaIhBCycUK3fVuKsDR-C0YDzLBlFBRAHoydlXK6XNqJcwqni64pKrgVgeVPh9cyQ4dM/https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fcomlaude%3Flang%3Den>  [cid:image010.png at 01D908C3.4290A180] <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/>

[cid:image011.png at 01D908C3.4290A180]
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 Com Laude Group Limited (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 is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. 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 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fAS9w-NRUWTvfqlrwf9dqUaqT8nWymC_MP4NWXVwcfSqc1MsM7EOHuk4KBciMJ2ypcKZizxMVR5nJDnBt6CDGWMp9v4RWnyGgEJaQpRX9muHdjWic17n6fklslPhtD6zGkWT4IiC1QGBgBqJMfp45A6v1_dZTBn2iFgozcf9aERaQRFdT0Fpg7z_2gXXfG2lpLecgMkxzDxVgiWp4mEfAfkzv65CWBSYMQT0wkIb2SKCZlpvvR0a4Kp1igDf_O3euH0_0t_OWTXoLiXTfIeT8FzlvGfPc9ksMiZGXCtGVfM/https%3A%2F%2Fcomlaude.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20221205/6db6f568/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3840 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20221205/6db6f568/image006-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15268 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20221205/6db6f568/image007-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2129 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20221205/6db6f568/image008-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2955 bytes
Desc: image009.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20221205/6db6f568/image009-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2347 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20221205/6db6f568/image010-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16035 bytes
Desc: image011.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20221205/6db6f568/image011-0001.png>

More information about the IOT mailing list