[IOT] IRP IoT message post-ICANN57

[McAuley, David]

Dear members of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team:

As Thomas mentioned during the Nov. 2 CCWG F2F meeting in Hyderabad I am taking over as the lead of the team. When Becky joined the Board at the conclusion of ICANN57 she relinquished the IoT lead role - but the good news is that Becky will remain a member of the team going forward. I think I speak for all of us in thanking Becky for her able leadership to this point and getting us through the difficult process of establishing new supplemental rules of procedure.

With ICANN 57 behind us, it is time to look forward to the remaining tasks and to set a schedule to get through the work by next June or before.

Below are the tasks ahead as I see them. If you see matters for us to address that I missed please raise them on list or on our next call.

Also listed below are matters for clarification or further development in the supplemental rules.



IoT Tasks Ahead (references are to bylaws Article 4 unless Bylaws Annex D or CCWG Final Report Annex 07 is indicated):



1.       We will need to work with staff on considering the comments that will be posted to the new supplemental rules of procedure.



2.       We have a role to play as ICANN "in consultation with" the SOs and ACs both creates a tender process for admin support of the IRP and establishes the panel (4.3(j)(ii)(A)). We will need to agree on how to proceed in that role. [We may also consider how to notify SOs and ACs of this coming effort on their part - the SOs and ACs will nominate panel members and the Board will have the right to confirm them - Section 4.3(j)(iv)]



3.       We must develop a recall process for removing members of the standing panel (Section 4.3(j)(iii)).



4.       Specialized rules of procedure (subject to public comment) may be needed for reviews of PTI service complaints by direct customers of IANA Naming functions (4.3(n)(ii)). We should correspond with such customers, asking them to review the new rules and consider suggestions for specialized rules.



5.       As noted, 4.3(j) deals with establishing a standing panel - Section 4.3(q) deals with the panel's requirements for independence. We must specifically consider "additional independence requirements" like term limits (a panelist term is five years) and restrictions on post-term appointment to other ICANN positions (4.3(q)(i)(B)).



6.       Section 4.3(w) gives us the ability to set limitations on appeals of IRP panel decisions to the full standing panel. The new supplemental rules don't set any limits. I can't think of any that seem compelling (although we might consider a limitation on appeals of non-binding IRPs - see 4.3(x)(iv)).



7.       Annex 07, paragraph 44.2 notes there may be some "operational rules" for IRP (these may be distinct from procedural rules, not sure). One example I can think of is making sure that the IRP admin provider writes to parties encouraging them to try to narrow issues in a filed IRP ("Conciliation" - 4.3(h)). We should consider whether we want to suggest operational rules.
Further clarification or supplemental rules work?



1.       Should we consider making explicit in the "Scope" section of the new rules an overarching statement that the ICANN IRP-related bylaws apply and take precedence over all rules (provider rules and supplemental rules)? I believe this to be true but we may want to be abundantly clear.



2.       A related issue deals with considering/addressing the footnotes in the new supplemental rules. I believe the footnotes are carry-overs from the original drafting work done by Sidley-Adler. For example, footnote 43 involves the timing of IRP panel decisions - we could address this (as well as exceptions to timing "as otherwise permitted under the Rules of Procedure" (4.3(s)), or rely on an overarching bylaws-precedence rule if we choose that path, or rely on the ICDR or other administrative provider rules. But we should address all footnotes to see if action is required.



3.       Becky and I received requests from two community members for the IoT team to consider additional rules or clarity. How should we handle these?:



a.       On matters of joinder/intervention Kathy Kleiman made a request - I will separately forward an e-mail from Kathy in this respect; and



b.      Jorge Cancio asked about the "translation services" in 4.3(l), saying:



My suggestion was to consider developing this rule in a fashion that enhances diversity. For instance, stating that translation also means interpretation during hearings. That, when translation services are required, they are granted per default (and rejection is ruled out generally). Also that the translated documents are provided at the same time as the original English documents or, at least, that the deadlines only count in such cases whenever the translated document has reached the interested party, etc.



4.       We should specify procedures if ICANN elects not to respond to an IRP (4.3(n)(iv)(F)). Section 4.3(g) appears to have resolved this - is anything else needed?



5.       Under new rules "Time for Filing" provisions we should consider noting that for an EC claim the timing provisions are further subject to the provisions of Bylaw Section 4.7 (Mediation) and Annex D, Article 4, Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
David

David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20161118/919bfca8/attachment.html>