[IOT] IOT - Consolidation Sub-Group call 1830 UTC today - Agenda and document

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Berni
Happy new year
Pls kindly always send the link for the meeting
Regards
KA

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 3:28 PM Bernard Turcotte via IOT <iot at icann.org>
wrote:

>
> *Consolidation Sub Team members*
>
> *Agenda for Tuesday 18 January 2022, meeting 18:30 UTC*
>
> 1.      Review of agenda.
>
> 2.      Continue with review items for consideration arising out of 23
> November call
>
> 4.      Review and discussion of the updated version Rule 7 mark up
> (attached)
>
> 5.      Next meeting – Tuesday 1 February 1700 UTC.
>
> *Notes from 23 November call*
>
>
>
> The following items arose during our last call on 23 November and require
> further consideration from the Sub Team:
>
>
>
>    - Whether the request for consolidation/intervention/participation as
>    amicus should in fact be heard by the full panel, once appointed, rather
>    than a single interim panellist appointed for this purpose – some public
>    comment input to this effect.  Considerations:
>       - Typically 1-2 months to seat full panel, so potential delay in
>       dealing with such requests - would this timing work, particularly for
>       consolidation where two IRPs are proceeding in parallel?
>       - Joining party (consolidation/intervention) would not have input
>       on panel selection – is the trade-off they make for joining another
>       proceeding?
>       - Would an alternative be to retain single panelist
>       decision-making, but allow them to confer with full Standing Panel?
>
> *Update 8 December*: support on the call for having these applications
> considered by the full panel; edits to Rule 7 (attached) to reflect
>
>    - The role of the Supporting Organisation, e.g. GNSO,  in proceedings
>    where their policy is being challenged:
>       - under Interim Rules they join as a Claimant but, presumably, they
>       actually are opposed to the initial Claimant’s position.
>       - Should they be an amicus?
>
> *Update 8 December*: support on call for SO participation as “cross
> claimant”, “opponent claimant” or similar; Query – what rights should SO
> have that would not be delivered by making them an amicus?
>
>    - Do we need a mechanism to hold amicus participants accountable:
>       - On last call, we seemed to favour making this at the discretion
>       of the panel, and to add some explicit language to this effect
>
>
>
>
>
> Bernard Turcotte
>
> ICANN Support to the IOT
>
>
> For
>
>
> Susan Payne
>
> Chair IOT and Consolidation Sub-Group
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/iot/attachments/20220118/e38f69c6/attachment.html>