<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I did not read Malcolm's email until now, but my comments on today's call were highly aligned with Malcolm's. Great minds, etc.</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 clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></p><div><p style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter__GoBack"></a></span><b style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#002e62">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan</span><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.3333px"><br></span></font><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-indent:0in" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></p><p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 11/05/2017 13:45, McAuley, David wrote:<br>
> Thanks Malcolm, fair point - we can discuss on call.<br>
><br>
> My initial reaction is to agree but to keep the point I was making to<br>
> some extent - because that section of bylaw deals with abusive or<br>
> frivolous claim or defense - which presumably includes an argument by<br>
> amici.<br>
><br>
> Maybe we could narrow this to allow cost shifting "to the extent"<br>
> that ICANN incurs cost to defend against an amici argument that is<br>
> found by the panel to be abusive or frivolous.<br>
<br>
> Let's discuss.<br>
<br>
</span>I may not be able to make tonight's call, so I'm going to make my<br>
contribution now.<br>
<br>
You assume the amicus would be briefing against ICANN? I'm not so sure.<br>
<br>
I would say that the potentially chilling effect of such a provision<br>
more than outweighs the benefit from dissuading frivolous amicus<br>
intervention, not least because I don't see much harm done.<br>
<br>
There's a real difference between bringing a frivolous case and making a<br>
frivolous intervention.<br>
<br>
A case must be answered, if only to defend against a default judgement.<br>
<br>
If ICANN considers the amicus brief to add nothing substantive that's<br>
new, it can simply ignore it.<br>
<br>
And, as I said before, an amicus isn't really on either side. Even if an<br>
amicus does criticise or oppose one aspect of ICANN's argument, that<br>
doesn't necessarily amount to a view that the claimant should prevail.<br>
<br>
I would be concerned that cost shifting would simply dissuade public<br>
interest parties from contributing to the process, because they couldn't<br>
stand the cost if it occurred.<br>
<br>
To be honest, I worry that cost shifting even against a claimant might<br>
have a chilling effect that is worse than what it brings in terms of<br>
dissuasion. But that's where we ended up in the bylaws, a compromise.<br>
Extending it to amici I think is taking it too far.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Malcolm.<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
><br>
> And again, thank you and,<br>
><br>
> Best wishes, David<br>
><br>
> David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager<br>
> Verisign Inc. <a href="tel:703-948-4154" value="+17039484154">703-948-4154</a><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty<br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 7:29 AM To:<br>
> McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; <a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">iot@icann.org</a> Subject:<br>
> [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] Trying to coordinate Joinder comments<br>
><br>
> Dear David,<br>
><br>
> I think your proposal on amici needs a little refinement, rather than<br>
> simply applying 4.3(r) to amici.<br>
><br>
> 4.3(r) says that parties shall generally bear their own costs, but<br>
> that the IRP panel may shift costs to the losing party.<br>
><br>
> I agree that amici should bear their own costs. I do not believe<br>
> amici should be exposed to share in the costs in the event of cost<br>
> shifting if they support the losing side, nor should they benefit<br>
> from a share in the costs that are shifted if they are on the winning<br>
> side.<br>
><br>
> For that matter, an amicus brief may not obviously be tied to other<br>
> "side". Amicus briefs can be purely informational, and they can often<br>
> support or oppose one aspect of a party's position (or the question<br>
> at issue) without taking any view on the core of the case or who<br>
> should prevail.<br>
><br>
> But even for amicus briefs that do clearly support one side, I think<br>
> they should be exempted from cost-shifting either to their benefit or<br>
> to their detriment.<br>
><br>
> Kind Regards,<br>
><br>
> Malcolm.<br>
><br>
> On 03/05/2017 21:21, McAuley, David via IOT wrote:<br>
>> Dear members of the IRP IOT,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> For our call tomorrow at 19:00 UTC.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Attached are two brief slides with my thoughts on trying to<br>
>> coordinate disparate joinder comments.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Slide two mentions bylaw section 4.3(s) - which states this: "(s)<br>
>> An IRP Panel should complete an IRP proceeding expeditiously,<br>
>> issuing an early scheduling order and its written decision no later<br>
>> than six months after the filing of the Claim, except as otherwise<br>
>> permitted under the Rules of Procedure. The preceding sentence does<br>
>> not provide the basis for a Covered Action."<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> And mentions bylaw 4.3(r) - which says this: "(r) ICANN shall bear<br>
>> all the administrative costs of maintaining the IRP mechanism,<br>
>> including compensation of Standing Panel members. Except as<br>
>> otherwise provided in Section 4.3(e)(ii), each party to an IRP<br>
>> proceeding shall bear its own legal expenses, except that ICANN<br>
>> shall bear all costs associated with a Community IRP, including the<br>
>> costs of all legal counsel and technical experts. Nevertheless,<br>
>> except with respect to a Community IRP, the IRP Panel may shift and<br>
>> provide for the losing party to pay administrative costs and/or<br>
>> fees of the prevailing party in the event it identifies the losing<br>
>> party's Claim or defense as frivolous or abusive."<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Best regards<br>
>><br>
>> David<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> David McAuley<br>
>><br>
>> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager<br>
>><br>
>> Verisign Inc.<br>
>><br>
>> 703-948-4154<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________ IOT mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:IOT@icann.org">IOT@icann.org</a> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/iot</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" value="+442076453523">+44 20 7645 3523</a> Head of Public Affairs |<br>
> Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange |<br>
> <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
><br>
> London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street<br>
> London EC3R 8AJ<br>
><br>
> Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity<br>
> Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" value="+442076453523">+44 20 7645 3523</a><br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br>
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
<br>
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ<br>
<br>
Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
IOT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:IOT@icann.org">IOT@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/iot</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>