[CCWG-ACCT] IRP

[Tijani BEN JEMAA]

Hello,

You must remember my repetitive requests to define a hard stop for the IRP consideration of a conflict since the language proposed by the lawyers fix it to 6 months except in some circonstances, and neither the nature of the circonstances nor the maximum duration of the IRP proceedings are defined.

On at least 2 CCWG calls and on the mailing list, I raised the issue, and I was told that it will be corrected. But in the bylaws under public comment now, it is made worse since it says:
Section 3.4 (s)   

An IRP Panel should complete an IRP proceeding expeditiously, issuing an early scheduling order and its written decision no later than six months after the filing of the Claim, except as otherwise permitted under the Rules of Procedure.  For the avoidance of doubt, an IRP Panel’s failure to issue a written decision within six months after the filing of a Claim shall not be grounds for another Claim.

That means that an IRP can last for years since an IRP Panel’s failure to issue a written decision within six months after the filing of a Claim shall not be grounds for another Claim.

 I don’t ask to impose 6 months period for the IRP proceedings. The first part of the proposed text is fine:
		  An IRP Panel should complete an IRP proceeding expeditiously, issuing an early scheduling order and its written decision no later than six months after 
		   the filing of the Claim, except as otherwise permitted under the Rules of Procedure.  

My problem is with the last part that say:
		For the avoidance of doubt, an IRP Panel’s failure to issue a written decision within six months after the filing of a Claim shall not be grounds for another 
		Claim.

This means that even if the panel takes 2 years to issue its decision, nothing can be done.

My proposal is to remove the last part, and in the Rule of Procedure, we define the nature of the circonstances that may prevent the panel to issue its decision in 6 months, and the maximum extension that could be given to the IRP according to the nature of the circonstance to complete its proceedings.

Why it is important: the more the time is long, the more there are rooms for capture (corruption). Don’t forget that the decision of an IRP may be too important for the business of the claimant, so they may be tempted to use any mean to get the decision they wish. If we don’t define a maximum time, we increase this kind of risk.

If the last part of the text is not removed from the proposed Bylaws, and even if the RoP fix the maximum extension period for the IRP to issue its decision, this will not have any effect: the Bylaws which has more weight then a RoP says explicitly that  IRP Panel’s failure to issue a written decision within six months after the filing of a Claim shall not be grounds for another Claim.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
            +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160429/2be87159/attachment.html>