[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP2 Meeting #10 - 22 July
brenda.brewer at icann.org
Wed Jul 22 13:51:43 UTC 2015
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP2 Meeting #10 held on 22 July will be available
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript.
- Purpose of the call is IRP
KA - IRP as proposed could interfere with the GAC advice to the Board.
BB - This is a difficult issue.. Getting this right is going to be complicated - they have to be
right. Deliverables for WS1 for IRP would be the rules plus a plan
for implementation. The implementation committee should be a subset of the CCWG and should be
augmented by international constitutional law experts..
DM - Supports. Replace constitutional with governance.
GS - Issue with the use of constitutional in this context.
BB - Has no issue removing this term.
GS - would support this.
BB - This is IRP+ - where the plus relates to the member's rights.
GS - why do we need international legal experts?
DM - Standard should be uniformly stated. Stat rights of the sole member should mesh with the
BB - good point - we will refer tot he rights of the sole member as described in the Bylaws
AD - International is critical - Bylaws have to be interpreted with an international perspective.
BB - Good point
BB - section 2 Standing - Should this state that ICANN by contract should not use a contract to
deprive anyone of its rights.
KA - Issue vs the term take advantage of for GAC.
BB - this is not derogatory
DM - by contract not deprive a party to go to IRP
Both parties going to IRP should sign a document saying they will abide by the results and not go to
EM - same, supports.
BB - KA is the take advantage issue ok now.
BB - RPG concern regarding standing, BB believes this should be ok.
BB - Selection process - issue around Board participation, need to be distinct from standard inner
BB - In Paris discussed for selecting a firm for administrative support to find candidates.
Specialized head hunting firm internationally that would work with the community to get
applications. The community would select the candidates + and overflow pool. this could be an early
part of WP2. The proposed candidates would go to the Board which could object for specific reasons.
DM - Judicial headhunter - Some legal experience is good but non lawyers can make good arbitrators.
Worries that the panel will only be lawyers. Would like wider consideration.
BB - the first report mentioned panelists who have legal expt. + additional areas. There are people
who have helped set up courts which we will need. to avoid making mistakes. Does not disagree that
some panelists who could not be lawyers but it would seem logical for lawyers.
Matthew Shears: I agree with David's point that the skill set should be broadened and having
individuals with arbitration skills would be useful
BB- should we change the defn for panelist that is in place since the beginning..
GS - include arbitration.
BB - Selection process is ok,
BB - Diversity is an issue - some have suggested in the PC that there should not be more than 2
pann. from one region.
DM - Small group therefore easy to fill it from all regions and as such is sensible.
GS - Hard limit is worrisome. Diversity has to be secondary to skill set., qualifications has to be
EM - Support GS - Concerned about legal system diversity.
BB - Hearing reasonable efforts + a soft Goal of not more than 2 from the same region.
BB - 7 member standing panel. ICANN raised questions regarding capacity or limits. BB mentioned
possibility of an overflow pool that would be prevetted panelists that would only be paid if called
upon. All ok with this? No objections.
BB - KA about the GAC concerns. BB reminds that IRP ruling will not determine how to fix a
violation. This opens an opportunity for discussion between the parties..
BB - USG has noted that there should be a test period.
GS - Decisions o IRP cannot indicate how to amend?
does not seem appropriate to limit the panel in this way.
BB - not just yes or no, the rationale to support this is part of the record.
BB - KA notes the GAC has established a wg on this topic. Open to working with them. This being said
the community is strongly in favour of Binding.
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: DK has said, that "The new mechanisms must ensure that the Board is bound
to follow the ruling of the IRP"
DM - US idea of testing is good just uncertain how that would work. Binding is good.
GS - Binding issue has broad support - it can be appealed to the full panel and how that is done..
Recourse in the courts has to be clarified.
BB - There is a possibility of appeal. BB notes that KA does not want to be a hostage of a
California court.. Plaintiff winning IRP could go to court to get it
BB - Terms, independence from ICANN pre and post.
DM - 2 years pre and post. Term 3 years? Does it need a <http://review.to/> review to ensure it
sticks to what it should be doing.
BB - Good point and related to the USG requirement for a test period. BB prefers 4 years with
DM 4 years is goo
BB 4/2 is good.
KA - IRP request on same topic of an ongoing IRP request.
BB -consolidation is important. Doing both could lead to diverse decisions.. other 4 parties should
be able to join ongoing process - this is for the implementation group.
BB - Settlement can involve formal mediation.
BB - Decision already covered.
BB - binding
David McAuley: Will a 1 member, non-binding panel be available if parties elect?
Becky Burr: yes David
arasteh: But one member panel shall not be binding
EM - does not like CEP
BB - some really like it
EM - it is opaque to all including affected parties.needs to be more transparent.
BB - Good idea for for WS2
GS - CEP has not been reviewed - we may want to do this. CEP as a real mediation service would be
very good. Many comments that the experience of the CEP was not good.
CEP review should be done in WS2.
BB - Good suggestion
BB - Subgroup for impl. details. WS1 just needs the Bylaws language.
BB - Binding vs non-Binding and what to do about real BONEHEAD decisions? Reviews.
DM - Narrow community power to say THIS DECISION MAKES no sense. Panels once in a while come out
BB - Revise and expand this as pe3r this discussion to create the report. I will do this anc
BB - there are a lot of details that have to be completed. Implementation sub-group is going to be a
KA - support this approach
KA - Repeats GAC issue vs Binding
BB - Is the issue already addressed with IRP decision not specifying how ICANN hs to address or
implement? and the GAC could provide advice to ICANN on how to implement
or address the binding request.
GS - IRP should be able to challenge GAC backed advice to a Board decision.
BB - I hink its not about it being binding or not - if a decision comes down the GAC wants to be
able to enter in the consultation..
BB - Scenario - GAC provides advice to Board, refused, there is consultation and an agreement is
reached. Someone could claim that decision violates the
Bylaws and goes to IRP. The panel could say the plaintiff is correct and the decision violates the
bylaws. There is nothing that prevent the GAC from submitting
further advice to the Board on this and then there could be further negotiations.
KA - yes but the Board would need to continue consultation with the GAC.
BB - this is very workable. Thew IRP judgement should not block further negotiations between the
Board and the GAC.
end of meeting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community