Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Hedlund
28:08
Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Paul McGrady
32:40
More details below
Susan Payne
33:11
@Kathy your connection is horrible - breaking up
Griffin Barnett
38:09
Apologies for joining late, had a previous meeting run a bit long
Emily Barabas
41:14
The chart is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit?pli=1#gid=0
Jamie Baxter
44:59
+1 Christopher
Anne Aikman-Scalese
45:55
I think that there have to be evaluation entities - e.g. WIPO - their procedures are widely respected
Jamie Baxter
46:32
I have always expressed concern about the lack of transparency around CPE evaluators
Susan Payne
48:44
At least one of the reasons to have this appeal/challenge process is to ensure that where an entity makes a decision there is a path to seek reconsideration, rather than having to try to bring an acct mechanism against icann for an act of the entity
Susan Payne
49:16
i.e we were recognising that there are entities and building in an improvement
Susan Payne
49:50
why on earth wouldn't KPMG be able to assess financial matters?
Griffin Barnett
53:19
I agree it seems like a benefit and not a flaw to have these various third-parties performing the evaluations/dispute resolutions
Griffin Barnett
53:50
With appropriate oversight/transparency/appeals…which I understand is what these recommendations/implementation guidance is intended to achieve
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:10
+1 Griffin
Paul McGrady
55:47
my hand has been up for awhile too
Greg Shatan
57:05
Apologies for continuing the off-topic discussion....
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:18
I don't have a problem with where we are with the third party evaluator recommendations. I think Greg may have raised some additional issues.
Griffin Barnett
58:19
If that’s Christopher’s point then we agree with that
Griffin Barnett
58:33
(As clarified by Paul)
Jamie Baxter
58:59
+1 on Paul’s interpretation as well
Paul McGrady
01:02:20
Agree. Seems unlikely.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:04:23
For those who are agreeing, how does that all relate to the newly-revised IRP process addressed at length in Workstream 2 Accountability work?
Susan Payne
01:05:51
+1 Paul
Susan Payne
01:06:13
on the contention set members
Justine Chew
01:10:42
set = group
Griffin Barnett
01:11:01
Pretty sure there is an AGB definition for contention set?
Justine Chew
01:11:39
Set is the term that is used
Susan Payne
01:11:42
contention set = the group of applicants who applied for the same string
Annebeth Lange
01:11:42
All parties that apply for the same gTLD is a set
Greg Shatan
01:11:44
It is a set — of applications.
Susan Payne
01:11:47
well defined in the AGB
Poncelet Ileleji
01:12:10
yes it is well defined in the agb
Justine Chew
01:13:19
@Susan, or strings deemed similar :)
Susan Payne
01:13:56
true justine
Justine Chew
01:14:03
+1 Paul
Annebeth Lange
01:14:05
Good precision, Justine
Paul McGrady
01:19:29
.Does the partial refund compound the "buddy down the hall" problem we already have? Now the co-employee will not only have to say his colleague is wrong, but his company has to also pay? Seems like that won't happen much.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:27:48
Given there are still excess funds available from 2012, it seems possible that the cost has been absorbed in some way by ICANN with the excess funds.
Susan Payne
01:28:34
Excellent idea Donna
Jeffrey Neuman
01:29:15
There was no appeals last time, so that would be comparing apples to oranges
Jamie Baxter
01:29:57
@Jeff .. but I think our case would have been a perfect example of a future appeal
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:30:14
@Susan, I was just reflecting on the question posed by Jamie about who paid, I wasn't proposing anything.
Jamie Baxter
01:30:28
It just happens that the only option we had was an accountability mechanism and the Board had to acknowledge it
Justine Chew
01:31:21
I too am concerned about an arbiter finding a grossly wrong finding on the part of a fellow arbiter making the wrong decision.
Justine Chew
01:32:43
Absolutely Paul, access to a challenge or appeal (which is great) can easily become inaccessible due to costs.
christopher wilkinson
01:32:47
@ Paul - I don’t recall saying that, but I tend to agar with Paul-.
Paul McGrady
01:33:55
@Christopher, it was derivative of something you said, which is these costs can be tied to high cost lawyer billable hour rates. The appeals fees should be modest and accessible.
Paul McGrady
01:34:08
costs can't be tied
Justine Chew
01:38:26
We are throwing out SWORD
Susan Payne
01:38:27
@Ane SWORD didn't work
Susan Payne
01:38:39
sorry Anne, not Ane
Susan Payne
01:43:50
we most certainly haven't made such a recommendation. who is "we"
Griffin Barnett
01:44:36
Pretty sure there were many discussions about WT5
Susan Payne
01:46:06
@Paul - the latter
Susan Payne
01:46:18
i.e its Geo name as set out in AGB
Justine Chew
01:46:19
Geonames "as prescribed in AGB"
Greg Shatan
01:46:31
Should be a quote unquote Geographic Name
Paul McGrady
01:46:55
Thanks Jeff
Katrin Ohlmer
01:47:27
+1 Justine
martinsutton
01:47:28
Would be good to keep on topic
Susan Payne
01:47:43
not your turn Christopher. perhapsstaff would mute his mik
Greg Shatan
01:48:51
Today’s issue is challenges and appeals. Can we stay on topic, please?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:34
Christopher you are making very wide reaching and not I believe widely held statements as some sort of truth as opposed to I admit your well stated and deeply held personal opinions, please refrain from this with your interventions when it is not our Agenda for today (or when it is for that mater)
martinsutton
01:49:37
No one is raising hands because you are taking us off topic
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:45
OFF TOPIC
martinsutton
01:49:52
AGAIN!
Justine Chew
01:50:16
Agree with Martin
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:22
we are dealing with Appeals today please note that as others are clearly doing so
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:38
low volume for me @Susan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:41
'better now
Annebeth Lange
01:51:07
+1 to Martin
martinsutton
01:51:41
Of course we can Kavous
Annebeth Lange
01:52:21
+1 to Susan
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:42
Can we not attack each other?
Justine Chew
01:53:15
@Greg, and not vide Objection?
Elaine Pruis
01:55:13
spa
Justine Chew
01:56:16
Would or could that not be an objection?
Justine Chew
01:56:40
Legal rights objection? Community objection?
Justine Chew
01:57:47
Sure, if no other avenue is available then yes. I'm sure there was or was not.
Justine Chew
01:57:56
*I'm not sure ...
Justine Chew
02:03:53
Limited appeal
Justine Chew
02:04:43
Also standard AM stresses on procedure
Paul McGrady
02:06:15
@Anne - yes, we will all have to watch the timeframes carefully
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:14:13
Request for REconsideration: Is this actually substantive in relation to the portion that says you can challenge the decision if it "ICANN's Board Governance Committee is responsible to receiving requests from any person or entity that has been materially affected by any ICANN staff action or inaction if such affected person or entity believes the action contradicts established ICANN policies, or by actions or inactions of the Board that such affected person or entity believes has been taken without consideration of material information." If that is still a basis, isn't that substantive in nature - i.e. "they got it wrong".
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:16:28
Kavouss is that a new hand?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:18:39
Transparency is clearly the Key here @Jamie
Paul McGrady
02:19:02
I like "ultimate decision makers" + transparency for background investigation appeal too
Annebeth Lange
02:20:42
Transparency is key
Paul McGrady
02:21:02
All, apologies, but I do need to drop off for another call at the top of the hour.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:21:19
Noted @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:21:30
We should wrap by then anyway
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:21:39
I believe ;-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:21:44
TIME CHECK
Jamie Baxter
02:22:51
+1 Justine
Justine Chew
02:23:14
Thanks @jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:23:18
We will check and ensure it is then
Paul McGrady
02:23:44
Thanks Jeff!
Julie Bisland
02:23:48
Next call: Monday, 20 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
christopher wilkinson
02:24:04
+1 Justine - CW
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:24:05
LOTS done today everyone THANK you most helpful indeed!
Poncelet Ileleji
02:24:09
Thanks Jeff
Katrin Ohlmer
02:24:22
Thanks, Jeff!
Julie Bisland
02:24:25
Next call: Monday, 20 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Justine Chew
02:24:31
With ASP, we might need to look at expanding the panel, to allow for challenge by "another person".
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:24:32
Bye for now then...
Annebeth Lange
02:24:56
Bye, bye and goodnight from Europe
Justine Chew
02:24:58
*to be heard by "another person".
Poncelet Ileleji
02:24:59
bye all
Griffin Barnett
02:25:03
bye all