[IOT] IOT - Agenda for IRP-IOT Meeting #88 15 March 2022 @ 18:00 UTC

Bernard Turcotte turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 19:38:37 UTC 2022


Please find below the agenda for our next plenary session.

*IRP-IOT Meeting #**88*

*15 March 2022** @ 1**8**:00 UTC*


*Pending Action Items:*

BT – recirculate analysis of Tolling vs Fixed Additional Time (completed
February 23rd).


1.     Review agenda and updates to SOIs.

2.    Review status of Action Items.

3.    Update from the Sub-Groups:

3.1. Initiation

3.2. Consolidation

4.    Confirmation of consensus on 30 day Fixed Additional time option for
filing (please listen to the recording of our last meeting for details at
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=186780156 )

5.    Continue the discussion on the Repose and Safety Valve language
(email inserted below and document attached).

6.    Confirmation of next meeting: 29 March 2022, 18:00 UTC.


*From: *IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Susan Payne via IOT <
iot at icann.org>
*Reply to: *Susan Payne <susan.payne at comlaude.com>
*Date: *Friday, 14 January 2022 at 17:31
*To: *"iot at icann.org" <iot at icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [IOT] IOT - Update from plenary meeting of January 11 19:00

Hi all

Thanks to all those who were able to join our call on Tuesday for the
really productive discussion on the rule 4 repose and safety valve
language.  We will need to continue that discussion on our next call to get
through the remainder of the clauses, but I thought it would be helpful to
capture at a high level the areas of agreement and areas where we
identified that further consideration/work is needed.  Please do review,
and if I have missed or mis-characterised anything please do correct me,
I’m doing this based on the notes I made but don’t yet have the

Using the section numbering from the ICANN draft of 13 December:

A.     Ongoing concerns about the deletion of the text referring to “*the
material effect* of the action or inaction”.  Proposal to refer instead to
“the material harm arising from the action or inaction” supported.

   1. Seeking of leave to file a late IRP:

   - Intention is that panel time considering the substance of the dispute
   is limited until after there has been an initial decision on the timing;
   - The leave process is intended to allow those who appreciate they are
   out of time to still proceed; in a case where a Claimant believes they are
   in time, but this is successfully disputed, the intent is not that they
   would thereby have lost their opportunity to ask the panel for leave;
   - The leave application effectively stops the clock.  To the extent that
   there is any time limit then it is for seeking leave, as opposed to having
   filed the subsequent Statement of Claim;
   - Language to be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure it reflects
   the intent.

Who should consider the application for leave:

   - As currently drafted, the decision is deferred to the IRP panel,
   however no panel will be in place at this point in proceedings.  Should a
   single panelist handle this since, if refused, there is no need to put a
   full panel in place? Should the parties proceed with selecting their panel
   before the application has been heard, in which case the application for
   leave would then be the first decision of that panel? Other suggestions?
   - Input required on the appropriate approach – input from practitioners
   particularly encouraged.

Ci   Although helpful to reiterate the need for Standing, which is the case
for all Claimants, this should not be something that the Claimant has to
establish by clear and convincing evidence at this point in the proceedings
in order to be granted leave to file late.  That standard is a very high
one, with the presumption against the Claimant.  Additionally, in some
cases Standing could even go to the substance of the dispute.  Delete (i)
and instead ensure the application for leave should include an explanation
of their Standing.

Cii Intent was that this subsection is the one which covers a Claimant who
is unable to bring their IRP in time because they were not yet eligible
(i.e. did not yet meet the requirements to be a Claimant as set out in the
Bylaws).  Language to be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure it
reflects the intent.

Ciii Intent of this subsection is to address the concern Kavouss raised
about a Claimant unable to file their IRP due to circumstances out of their
control – war, civil unrest, earthquake, typhoon etc.

We will pick this up next time – although as ever you are encouraged to
continue the discussion on the email.

We will also, time-permitting, which I hope it will be, come back to the
discussion of tolling vs fixed additional time, so please do review this in
advance and, again, share any thoughts by email where possible.


Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Com Laude
*T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
*Ext* 255

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20220314/a246a45f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20220314/a246a45f/image005-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IOT-Rule 4 comparisonSP-20211223.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 36531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20220314/a246a45f/IOT-Rule4comparisonSP-20211223-0001.docx>

More information about the IOT mailing list