Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the IRP-IOT Meeting #11 – 22 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/VQ6sAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Notes 1. Introduction/SOIs 2. Organizational Matters: a. Meetings schedule Bernard Turcotte: current reserved schedule is: 23 November 1300 2 December 1900 16 December 1900 13 January 1900 27 January 1900 David McAuley: we will review at the end of this meeting. b. Sub-Teams? David McAuley: too early to discuss. 3. IoT Tasks Ahead (generally) David McAuley: we have received a number of requests after having presented the Supplementary Rules to the CCWG plenary and obtained approval for public consultation. How should we handle these? Becky Burr: JC has asked about translation. KC had a point about joinder and if additional rules were needed for this. David McAuley: Were these discussed in Hyderabad? Becky Burr: no these were simply noted as questions. David McAuley: As such we should proceed to the public consultation with the documents as presented in Hyderabad - any objections? (none). Greg Shatan: Is it the intention to issue a revised set of suppl. rules. and would we then have another round of public consultation? David McAuley: good question, uncertain. Becky Burr: we anticipated that these would be iterative going forward. There is no requirement for these to go to public comment. We need the suppl. rules done ASAP. David McAuley: there is another issue wrt timing that has been going on via the list between BB and MH (presentation of issue per email discussion). Are we ok to go forward with the current language on this? Becky Burr: 45 days of becoming aware of material affect and in any case no later than 1 year after the action/inaction giving rise to the bylaws violation Chris Disspain: that's what I recall was agreed Becky Becky Burr: I think there is concern about the meaning of that provision. There is no substantive disagreement - simply concern that the wording may not properly represent the requirement. The time period starts when the policy is enforced (and not approved). David McAuley: do you think the current wording is ok for this BB? Becky Burr: yes. Malcolm Hutty: There is little difference between our positions of intent but not comfortable that the words will be interpreted as such. We need to be more clear. David McAuley: I am in agreement with Becky. Chris Disspain: hasn't this gone out for public comment? David McAuley: not yet Chris Becky Burr: this also can be an issue for public comment Chris Disspain: well, that was what I was going to say...Malcolm, how do you think the words would be interpreted? Becky Burr: it has to be the party - the materially affected party has standing. David McAuley: MH it would seem the best way forward on this issue could be for it to be brought up in the public comment. Chirs Dispain: what it sounds like is that some of us are clear - what is it that is unclear? Becky Burr: I think we can go out for public comment and ask Holly to provide an explanation. Malcolm Hutty: (registrant example of rule being applied two years later.) Becky Burr: This example is particularly complicated and extremely unlikely. Part of issue is whether it is action or inaction of ICANN or the registry or registrar. Becky Burr: ;Let's just say that a policy that is facially invalid can be challenged any time Malcolm Hutty: a registrant can bring such a challenge and if we restrict this then we are going against the Bylaws. Chris Dispain: what we are talking about is timing - the right for a registrant to bring an IRP is absolute. The current set of rules have been approved by the CCWG in Hyderabad - any comments should be provided in the public consultation. Becky Burr; provided, however, that a Consensus Policy that cannot be applied consistent with ICANN"s Bylaws can be challenged by a Materially Affected Party at any time. or Malcolm, you and I can propose a change to address facially invalid provisions in the comments. Chris Dispain: There is no problem with making these comments in the public consultation. Any form of substantive change to the document would need to go to a second round of public comment. David McAuley: We need to move forward and as such would request to we ask MH to submit this as a comment. Becky Burr: I would suggest that in the meantime that we ask for an opinion from Sidley on this question and if there is an issue we could request suggested fixes while the public consultation is ongoing. David McAuley: We would essentially be asking Sidley a question for a comment. Malcolm Hutty: would support this. David McAuley: Myself, BB and MH will develop a question for Sidley. 4. Supplemental Rules – clarification/work? 5. AOB David McAuley: will not have a call on Dec2 and will maintain Dec 16 call. Marianne Georgelin: The time is not convinient for europeans David McAuley: Agreed but would ask for indulgence for the December 16 call – will review meeting times at that call. Adjourned.