[IOT] Fwd: segmenting certain IRP comments

Bernard Turcotte turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
Thu Apr 27 20:05:45 UTC 2017

Re-distribution of David's original email noted on the call today.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: McAuley, David via IOT <iot at icann.org>
Date: Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:36 PM
Subject: [IOT] segmenting certain IRP comments
To: "iot at icann.org" <iot at icann.org>

Dear members of the IRP IOT,

On tomorrow’s agenda is an item described as “5. Attempt to segment out
some issues for early decision”

I am going to ask that we consider a list (see below) of certain comments
that may lend themselves to quick resolution, at least in discrete parts in
some cases.

Here are the comments I refer to and my thinking on them:

1.       ALAC – a comment
about continuous IRP improvement. I note that there is provision to allow
for review of IRP at Bylaw 4.6(b)(ii)(F) and that, in my opinion, should be

2.       Some of IPC comments
– regarding invoice date, panel make-up on appeals, and wording about ICDR
rules themselves not be overtaken as regards appeals, and costs of delay on
appeal. In my opinion the invoice date as the date to measure when costs
are due would be fine; I think the appeals panel should be left as is in
current bylaw and am not sure it would be fair to eliminate the judges who
ruled below; a rule specifically calling out an underlying ICDR rule seems
a bad idea to me as that underlying rule could change; and costs of delays
on appeals can be handled by panel as matter of discretion.

3.       DotMusic – These comments
seek to eliminate Board confirmation of standing panelists nominated by SOs
and ACs. But that confirmation process is in the bylaws and we cannot
overturn that.

4.       DotRegistry – This comment
seeks that any review of an IRP decision can only be made in a court and
expresses concern about a standing panel of “ICANN insiders.” Again,
however, the bylaws on this have been adopted.

5.       INTA’s comment
seeks to enlarge the bylaws’ concept of standing and allow those to be
claimants who not only have suffered harm but who are at risk of imminent
harm. Again, this would entail changing the bylaws in my opinion.

6.       And Auerbach’s comment
says that “materially affected” is too stringent for standing and that a
party should be able to bring an IRP claim should be broadened (e.g. to at
least include anyone using an IP address or domain name, - in fact it
should include “everyone”). But this is a bylaw provision.


David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>

IOT mailing list
IOT at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20170427/d8c49904/attachment.html>

More information about the IOT mailing list