[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

[Alan Greenberg]

I happen to largely agree with the Panel's findings, but this seems 
to be the week for my seeing humour and irony in lots of places.

At 21/09/2015 10:57 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

>The panel also thought it inappropriate that ICANN filed arguments 
>resisting live testimony before the panelists.  They thus issued an 
>interim ruling  that the judges would be able to question the 
>witnesses and ultimately did so.  So the Board was seen by the panel 
>as uncooperative in this respect.

Article IV, Section 3.12 of the Bylaws reads: "In order to keep the 
costs and burdens of independent review as low as possible, the IRP 
Panel should conduct its proceedings by email and otherwise via the 
Internet to the maximum extent feasible. Where necessary, the IRP 
Panel may hold meetings by telephone. In the unlikely event that a 
telephonic or in-person hearing is convened, the hearing shall be 
limited to argument only; all evidence, including witness statements, 
must be submitted in writing in advance."

By agreeing to live testimony and questioning witnesses, ICANN would 
have been in violation of its Bylaws.

Alan