<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Now I'm even more sorry I missed the call, but I had to be in transit to get to my office in time for the CWG-IANA call.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Are we trying to convey a particular level of proof, and if so, what level?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Does "clearly demonstrated" mean anything in particular to us? Does it mean something in particular to the parties or to the panel in a case, or will they be dealing with an unknown and undefined concept?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If we are going to establish a standard, and it's a brand new standard, we're going to need to define it. Any short phrase that doesn't have a settled meaning is asking for trouble. Participants will be grasping for something, and if we don't provide it, they will each go their own way, based on their own experiences.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">"Clear and convincing" has the advantage of being a known standard. I understand that some may resist terminology that is tied to any known body of jurisprudence, but if we go that route, we're going to need more detail.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think we need to step back and ask two questions:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b>What are we trying to say?</b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b><br></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b>How do we say it?</b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In considering the second question, we also need to ask "Is there an existing way to say it?"</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Burr, Becky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Thanks Greg. Although ICANN is comfortable with the “clear and convincing” standard, the sentiment on the call this morning was opposed. So here are our choices:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">ICANN: “demonstrated, with clear and convincing evidence”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">McAuley proposal: “clearly demonstrated”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Aresteh proposal: “demonstrated, with convincing evidence”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Can’t tell from your note whether the McAuley language (clearly demonstrate) gives you the same half pregnant heartburn<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Greg Shatan [mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.<wbr>com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burr, Becky <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:iot@icann.org" target="_blank">iot@icann.org</a></span></p><div><div class="h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [IOT] status on in-person hearing discussion following today's call<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Becky, ]<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">True, and yet it doesn't invoke that standard particularly well -- the "clear and convincing" standard of proof (if not evidence, per se) is well understood in US jurisprudence. But "convincing
evidence" alludes to that standard without actually invoking it. It leaves an ambiguity. We should either use the term "clear and convincing" or use neither term, so it's clear that we are not seeking to bring that standard to bear.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I will note that the PDDRP explicitly and expressly uses the "clear and convincing" standard for its arbitral decisions. And says so, in so many words.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">We should either commit or move away -- we can't be "half-pregnant."<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Burr, Becky <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I have noted your preference on this Kavouss. I am ok with “has demonstrated” as opposed to “has clearly
demonstrated,” but I do not support the addition of “with convincing evidence.” I think the Party should be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Panel that the 3 criteria are met. But “convincing evidence” invokes a very specific US judicial
evidentiary standard for establishing the burden of proof. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.<wbr>com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 11, 2016 3:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Burr, Becky <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:iot@icann.org" target="_blank">iot@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [IOT] status on in-person hearing discussion following today's call</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Beckie<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pls take the ICANN language and delete " Clearly" as follows<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
The IRP PANEL should conduct its proceedings with the presumption that in-person hearings shall not be permitted. The presumption against in-person hearings may be rebutted only under extraordinary circumstances, which are limited to circumstances where,
upon motion by a Party, the IRP PANEL determines that the party seeking an in-person
<span style="background:yellow">hearing has demonstrated, with convincing evidence</span>, that: (1) an in-person hearing is necessary for a fair resolution of the claim; (2) an in-person hearing is necessary to further the PURPOSES OF THE IRP; and (3) considerations
of fairness and furtherance of the PURPOSES OF THE IRP outweigh the time and financial expense of an in-person hearing. In no circumstances shall in-person hearings be permitted for the purpose of introducing new arguments or evidence that could have been
previously presented, but were not previously presented, to the IRP PANEL.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2016-08-11 19:13 GMT+02:00 Burr, Becky <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>>:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the hopes of narrowing and resolving differences, I’ve attempted to summarize the state of our discussion on the standard for in-person hearings.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN offered the following standard with respect to in-person hearings:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in">
The IRP PANEL should conduct its proceedings with the presumption that in-person hearings shall not be permitted. The presumption against in-person hearings may be rebutted only under extraordinary circumstances, which are limited to circumstances where, upon
motion by a Party, the IRP PANEL determines that the party seeking an in-person hearing has demonstrated, with clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) an in-person hearing is necessary for a fair resolution of the claim; (2) an in-person hearing is necessary
to further the PURPOSES OF THE IRP; and (3) considerations of fairness and furtherance of the PURPOSES OF THE IRP outweigh the time and financial expense of an in-person hearing. In no circumstances shall in-person hearings be permitted for the purpose of
introducing new arguments or evidence that could have been previously presented, but were not previously presented, to the IRP PANEL.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All participants appear to agree that in-person hearings should be the exception to the rule, and the group appears to be comfortable with ICANN’s proposal to create a rebuttable
presumption against such hearings, subject to an exception for “extraordinary” circumstances. Most participants are generally comfortable with using the 3 part test (necessary for fair resolution, necessary to further the purpose of the IRP, where those considerations
outweigh time and expense) to define the “extraordinary circumstances” category. In contrast, Amy articulated a slightly different standard permitting in-person hearings only where (a) the circumstances are extraordinary (which requires a definition) AND
(b) requirements (1) – (3) are met. Finally, everyone seemed very comfortable that you can’t use in-person hearings to introduce new evidence, etc. Participants are not comfortable injecting the US-centric “clear and convincing evidence” standard (and debates
about what that means, etc), into the process.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>1.<span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span> Most participants appeared to support the following revisions to the ICANN draft proposed by David McAuley:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
The IRP PANEL should conduct its proceedings with the presumption that in-person hearings shall not be permitted. The presumption against in-person hearings may be rebutted only under extraordinary circumstances<s><span style="color:red">, which are limited
to circumstances</span></s> where, upon motion by a Party, the IRP PANEL determines that the party seeking an in-person hearing has
<span style="color:red">clearly </span>demonstrated<s><span style="color:red">, with clear and convincing evidence,</span></s> that: (1) an in-person hearing is necessary for a fair resolution of the claim; (2) an in-person hearing is necessary to further the
PURPOSES OF THE IRP; and (3) considerations of fairness and furtherance of the PURPOSES OF THE IRP outweigh the time and financial expense of an in-person hearing. In no circumstances shall in-person hearings be permitted for the purpose of introducing new
arguments or evidence that could have been previously presented, but were not previously presented, to the IRP PANEL.
<i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">[For those who have not been following this closely, the “PURPOSE OF THE IRP” is to hear and resolve disputes specified in the ICANN Bylaws.]</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p>2.<span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span> Kavouss would prefer a Panel finding that the moving Party “<span style="color:red">convincingly</span>” demonstrated the requirements in (1) – (3). Also, Kavouss prefers not to use the word “circumstances.”<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>3.<span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span> ICANN (Sam and Amy) appear to be uncomfortable with both (1) and (2) above.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
IOT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:IOT@icann.org" target="_blank">IOT@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iot&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=5lAZ5PSnKpNHo7sm_vNCfIxPGY-mM62mgTtrM49J8bA&s=yKXfD4Zt6Jzk7jeWY3i8L7jZUu8y1MOE9a6FVyEXfxg&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/iot</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
IOT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:IOT@icann.org" target="_blank">IOT@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iot&d=DQMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=6YPlIeUH47RVeUDmwXOLZbiVYmbJpdcs1VyTYXe-wjc&s=bJqRrFoANyXa8KE1ARCdZIGIt9p_MkJcL3a7BsjhVog&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/iot</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>