<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Designing judicial-type systems is not for the faint of heart. Ultimately, you need to solve for a fairly high level of detail or you will get bitten later on. That said, I would say that (a) above (scope of IRP) needs to be solved now, while (b) (dealing with abusive filings), is a next level of detail (if not next, next level of detail), though I would indicate the general desire to do fairly early on. Of course, no matter what level of detail you get to, there will always be unanticipated issues.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">On the merits, I agree with Becky completely – that is, I agree that a) my preference would be for the reformed (or perhaps “restored” is the better term) IRP to apply to all pending matters; and b) we need to find a way to deal with abusive filings.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">My main question though is whether or not this group needs to get into that level of detail prior to the implementation of a new IRP process. I am sure, for example, that the panel appointees will have their own views on the best process to adopt for their own operations. Perhaps we can suffice with a statement of general principles, adopted as part of the IRP charter, rather than a point-by-point specific code of procedure?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul Rosenzweig<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">Link to my PGP Key</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Burr, Becky [mailto:<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 21, 2015 2:18 PM<br><b>To:</b> Jacob Malthouse<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] interplay between 'old' and 'new' IRPs<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">.africa is ICANN's self inflicted wound. They had an easy way to deal with this by following community developed policy in the form of the nGTLD AGB. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">The question about retroactive application of a reformed IRP is complicated, but on balance I come down on the side of retroactivity. The "good faith" standard adopted by the Board as a Bylaws amendment on the Consent calendar and over the well reasoned objection of the only stakeholder group that noticed what was going on (RySG) was illegitimate to begin with and has created totally anomalous results - some panels have ignored the new standard and some have followed it. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Having said that, I also think we need much better tools to handle abusive filings more efficiently and I would love to get this conversation going<br><br>Sent from my iPad<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>On May 21, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Jacob Malthouse <<a href="mailto:jacob@bigroom.ca" target="_blank">jacob@bigroom.ca</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I have a question about old and new IRPs. Old being the many currently active (notably taking up way more panelists than this group's proposal affords on the standing panel) and how they would relate to a new standing panel. <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">If the .Africa appeal drags on for example into a second IRP (as it looks like <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__booking.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=-zsFiNdv8qo-utd7EbvmhFCS8B-BDE9DQbVgBmk-tVA&s=74lQ18xg7CdMCqTqDXQ-fVC28DtM3KGdo-Flty4K9hw&e=" target="_blank">booking.com</a> will), eventually a new appeals system will be put in place. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I'd expect you could then launch a fresh appeal (third IRP) to that new panel because it is basically a new court, presumably followed by a fourth appeal of the appeal.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">So that's a total of four IRPs for .Africa before going to the courts. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Has any thought gone into how this would work (or not?). <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Best, J.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=-zsFiNdv8qo-utd7EbvmhFCS8B-BDE9DQbVgBmk-tVA&s=tNM-DP1Dbbdz3McKwBJeoqtUXEsVBku2DYzb5PCT1k4&e=" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=-zsFiNdv8qo-utd7EbvmhFCS8B-BDE9DQbVgBmk-tVA&s=tNM-DP1Dbbdz3McKwBJeoqtUXEsVBku2DYzb5PCT1k4&e=</a> <u></u><u></u></p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>