Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP-IOT Meeting #16 on 23 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/taDRAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D2A3F0.2D39B1C0] Action Items: · DM – Initiate discussion on the IOT supporting SO and ACs wrt selecting candidates for the IRP panel. · DM – Will initiate the continuation of the timing discussion on the list. · DM – will write to list to with proposal as to how to deal with other comments. Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 1. Recap of last meeting David McAuley - No changes to SOI. Note regarding Reg Levy re mentoring. Due date for report on public consultation - since we will not make 29 March - proposing 29 May - comments? (none). New date is 29 May. SOAC nominating candidates for the panel - the IOT would be available to help them and we need this on our radar and we have to get to it sooner rather than later. Will initiate a discussion on the list. Decision – New date for posting report on public consultation will be 29 May 2017. Action Item – DM – Initiate discussion on the IOT supporting SO and ACs wrt selecting candidates for the IRP panel. Kavouss Arasteh - nominating panel members as per the Bylaws? David McAuley - correct. ICANN will release an Expression of Interest for panel members. Respondents will be split into two buckets of very qualified and others. Kavouss Arasteh - qualifications should include valid experience and qualifications in IRP. Hope ICANN will take this into account in rating applicants. Samantha Eisner - We are finalizing the EoI which we will validate with the IOT. To KA's point we are drafting to the specifications in the Bylaws and then will vet the applicants. SOAC's can add qualifications for the applications which could include the experiences mentioned by KA. Hope to have EoI to this group next week. 2. How start of time is calculated Malcolm Hutty - (presenting slides). Anyone on this call wishing to apply a moratorium on this? (none) David McAuley - would oppose this. Malcolm Hutty - the moratorium option should be set aside as there is no support for this (even if I found it an acceptable way forward). Samantha Eisner: Can we see what is on the "how long is allowed" before we conclude on this page? Kavouss Arasteh - Clarification of "not later than the latest" needs clarification. Malcolm Hutty - will fix, am certain the lawyers will come up with some appropriate wording, this is just concepts language. Sam Eisner - with this proposal are we removing any option for an absolute time limit? Malcolm Hutty - re fixed date - our legal counsel advised against this. Sam Eisner - could someone make a claim 5 years after? Malcolm Hutty - Highly unlikely 5 years would be used. Becky Burr: What do we mean by an "act" - Becky Burr: I think ICANN could adopt a policy that did not affect someone for 5 years Samantha Eisner: act could be implementing of a policy, or other acts as well Samantha Eisner: it doesn't have to be just the adoption Kavouss Arasteh - do not understand the difference between options 1 and 2. Malcolm Hutty - KA may be correct as there may be a tautology between these two. but the objective is to approve the concept and let the lawyers clean this up. Greg Shatan - We need both 1 and 2. If you have a house in the woods and it burns down on July 1st but you only go on August 1st so point 1 is July 1st, 2 is August 1st - and if you never go there - there should be a limit as to when you should of been aware (have a neighbour check on your house at least every six months). this type of language is standard legal language. We should also be clear on what we are talking about. Sam Eisner - 1 and 2 make sense and could be refined. As to ultimate repose we have a responsibility in that the IRP needs to create an environment of certainty and therefore this would argue for the need of repose. Kavouss Arasteh 2: We need to write a text which is understandable by everybody Malcolm Hutty - there seems to be consensus to the approach which needs to be refined by lawyers. SE is still bringing up repose - however our independent counsel has advised against this and there have been no public comments which support repose - quite the contrary. Samantha Eisner: I'm not clear of where that piece of advice from Sidely comes from Samantha Eisner: can you please re-circulate that to the group? Greg Shatan: I would change "no later than" to "on or before" -- avoides the "double later" Samantha Eisner: From what we can find on Sidley's advice, they noted that a one-year bar on claims could stand, and they provided other advice on the "facial invalidity" issue that we are no longer discussing Kavouss Arasteh - We need some sort of preamble for 1 and 2. also do not want to go to more than 90 days. Greg Shatan: 45 days is about enough time for the Empowered Community to order breakfast.... Greg Shatan: If it works for the EC, 120 works for me. Samantha Eisner: Greg, once there's a petition started, then there's appx a 60 day time to get from petition to community forum Kavouss Arasteh – If not other objections I can support 120 days. Malcolm Hutty - consensus of 120 days - no objections. Decision – 120 days accepted as a substitute for the 45 days proposed USP. Dave McAuley - the Timing issue should now move to the list. would like to use the remainder of the time to begin the discussion of Joinder (presentation of slides). Action Item – DM – Will initiate the continuation of the timing discussion on the list. Sam Eisner - we need to remember what we are writing rules about - this is about seeing if the Bylaws have been broken - this is not about re-litigating decisions that are in line with the Bylaws. Malcolm Hutty: In my experience, permission for joinder or intervention is held by the court, not by the clerk, so I would agree with granting it in this case to the IRP panel, not the PO David McAuley - will write to the list about moving forward with analysing the remaining comments. Adjourned. Action Item – DM – will write to list to with proposal as to how to deal with other comments. Decisions: · New date for posting report on public consultation will be 29 May 2017. · 120 days accepted as a substitute for the 45 days proposed USP. Action Items: · DM – Initiate discussion on the IOT supporting SO and ACs wrt selecting candidates for the IRP panel. · DM – Will initiate the continuation of the timing discussion on the list. · DM – will write to list to with proposal as to how to deal with other comments.
