[IOT] IRP IOT - taking stock and moving forward
avri doria
avri at acm.org
Tue Sep 25 15:03:54 UTC 2018
Hi,
Are we on step C now with SOAC holding the token? When can the Board
expect to need to do its work under step D? Do we know?
Thank you
avri
On 25-Sep-18 09:11, McAuley, David wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> The operative bylaw on this topic is Section 4.3(j). Essentially it
> looks to ICANN and the SOs/ACs jointly to establish the standing panel
> of at least seven members from which will be drawn the three-member
> panels to hear individual IRP claims.
>
> Important parts of Section 4.3(j)(ii):
>
> …
>
> (ii) ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations
> and Advisory Committees, initiate a four-step process to establish the
> Standing Panel to ensure the availability of a number of IRP panelists
> that is sufficient to allow for the timely resolution of Disputes
> consistent with the Purposes of the IRP
>
> …
>
> (B)ICANN shall issue a call for expressions of interest from potential
> panelists, and work with the Supporting Organizations and Advisory
> Committees and the Board to identify and solicit applications from
> well-qualified candidates, and to conduct an initial review and
> vetting of applications.
>
> (C)The Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees shall nominate
> a slate of proposed panel members from the well-qualified candidates
> identified per the process set forth in Section 4.3(j)(ii)(B).
>
> (D)Final selection shall be subject to Board confirmation, which shall
> not be unreasonably withheld.
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
> David McAuley
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
> Verisign Inc.
> 703-948-4154
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of avri doria
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 3:22 PM
> To: iot at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] IRP IOT - taking stock and moving forward
>
> Hi,
>
> Who holds the token for getting the panels established ASAP? The Staff
> Org or the SO/AC Orgs? Or the SO/AC leadership group? It does seem to
> be a floundering effort.
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 24-Sep-18 12:19, McAuley, David via IOT wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Becky,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sam and Bernie and I will be making a presentation to ccNSO and GNSO
> > in Barcelona and a ‘call-to-action’ to SOs/ACs will be a part of that
> > – with more emphasis at ICANN63. And I believe IOT members are more
> > than willing to help their respective SOs/ACs as they get this going.
> >
> >
> >
> > I may also be writing to SO/AC leaders along the same lines prior to
> > ICANN63.
> >
> >
> >
> > The IOT has no formal role in establishing the panel but we will help
> > as best we can. As you say, this is critically important – I am very
> > hopeful that it can get some intense focus and move toward conclusion.
> >
> >
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at team.neustar <mailto:Becky.Burr at team.neustar>>
> > *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2018 12:08 PM
> > *To:* McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at verisign.com>>; iot at icann.org
> <mailto:iot at icann.org>;
> > aloup at usc.edu <mailto:aloup at usc.edu>
> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] IRP IOT - taking stock and moving
> > forward
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for this effort David – It is critically important that we
> > conclude this work that is foundational to our accountability efforts.
> > What is the status on panel selection efforts?
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org <mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org%20%3Cmailto:iot-bounces at icann.org>>> on
> > behalf of "McAuley, David via IOT" <iot at icann.org
> > <mailto:iot at icann.org>>
> > *Reply-To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com
> > <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com>>
> > *Date: *Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:13 AM
> > *To: *"iot at icann.org <mailto:iot at icann.org>
> <mailto:iot at icann.org%20%3Cmailto:iot at icann.org%3E>" <iot at icann.org
> > <mailto:iot at icann.org>>, "aloup at usc.edu <mailto:aloup at usc.edu>
> <mailto:aloup at usc.edu%20%3Cmailto:aloup at usc.edu%3E>"
> > <aloup at usc.edu <mailto:aloup at usc.edu
> <mailto:aloup at usc.edu%20%3Cmailto:aloup at usc.edu>>>
> > *Subject: *[IOT] IRP IOT - taking stock and moving forward
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear members of the IRP IOT:
> >
> >
> >
> > As you know, we were unable to gather a quorum for a conference call
> > Sept. 6^th despite several reminders from Bernie over a period of
> > about a month. This comes on the heel of difficulties gathering
> > quorums for calls over the past year.
> >
> >
> >
> > While this is a disappointment, I think it fair to say that post-IANA
> > Transition there has been some fatigue in the community. That is
> > understandable – nothing I say here is meant as criticism.
> >
> >
> >
> > But as IOT lead I must take steps to ensure that we remain viable,
> > especially now that we have significant responsibility for
> > establishing the ‘new’ IRP as mandated in Bylaw 4.3(n)(i). It is now
> > two years since this bylaw was enacted and we must get on with this work.
> >
> >
> >
> > Therefore, I want to suggest a plan for us, the members of the IOT, to
> > accomplish what we must with due regard to moving things along.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is what I propose:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. That we take steps, starting at ICANN 63 (with appropriate notices
> > beforehand), to reconstitute the IOT by approaching SOs/ACs with
> > information about such a need. We would administratively organize
> > this through the ICANN Org Policy group. This means adding members
> > to the IOT. No one currently on the IOT who wishes to remain would
> > be barred from staying in the IOT going forward under my plan –
> > but the plan would suggest that those who are no longer
> > interested/participating should please resign, with no adverse
> > inference to be drawn. Those who remain must be willing to
> > participate in work and deliberations. (Bylaw 4.3(n)(i) indicates
> > that the IOT will be established “in consultation with” the
> > SOs/ACs.)
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. In the meantime, I urge us as a group to contribute thoughts on
> > list and to make a quorum for two calls prior to ICANN 63 to
> > address two important issues we are almost finished with:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Interim rules of procedure. If we can close on this by Oct.
> > 11^th the interim rules could be presented to the Board at its
> > meeting in Barcelona – this would help ensure the new rules
> > are available ASAP; and
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Repose (Time-for-Filing issue) - analyze public comment and
> > finish this work (interim rules would protect claimants from
> > any impact from the time-for-filing rule pending finalization
> > of that topic).
> >
> >
> >
> > The two calls would both be in the week of Oct. 8^th . They would be
> > Tuesday Oct. 9 at 19:00 UTC and Thursday Oct. 11 at 19:00 UTC.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. Thus, it is expected we would wind-up work on the interim rules
> > and repose prior to having a reconstituted IOT. If we start a
> > reconstitution effort I estimate we could have a reconstituted IOT
> > by early in the new year – there is plenty of work yet to do. (See
> > Annex A below.)
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. I have been asked to give a summary of IRP developments to a few
> > groups at ICANN 63 and will do so on behalf of the IOT – and will
> > pass slides around to the IOT when I get them done – we could in
> > those presentations mention this plan and we could also encourage
> > SOs/ACs at the same time to get moving with the standing panel. I
> > think it possible that by adding IOT-reconstitution to the SOs/ACs
> > agenda it could help them focus on the standing panel as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> > David McAuley
> >
> > Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
> >
> > Verisign Inc.
> >
> > 703-948-4154
> >
> >
> >
> > *Annex A – remaining tasks for IOT:*
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. CEP rules to be developed – see section 4.3(i);
> > 2. Possibly recommend panel training – see section 4.3(j)(i);
> > 3. Develop an IRP panelist recall procedure – see section
> > 4.3(j)(iii);
> > 4. Possibly develop specialized PTI service-complaints rules –
> > see section 4.3(n)(ii);
> > 5. Develop procedures if ICANN elects not to respond to an IRP
> > (see section 4.3(n)(iv)(F) but note that section 4.3(g) may
> > provide all the procedure we need in this respect);
> > 6. Develop standards and rules governing appeals (see section
> > 4.3(n)(iv)(G) and see also section 4.3(w)). For example, will
> > we allow appeals where there was no response? Or appeals of
> > non-binding IRPs? (see section 4.3(x)(iv)) Or appeals of
> > interim relief under section 4.3(p))? We may also want to
> > talk about the potential for defaults/dismissals and the
> > allowance, or not, for related appeals;
> > 7. Will we develop additional independence requirements for IRP
> > panelists – see section 4.3(q)((i)(B). This includes
> > consideration of term limits and restrictions on post-term
> > appointments to other ICANN positions – see 4.3(q)(i)(B) and
> > see 4.3(j)(iii); and
> > 8. Possible review of Annex D, section 4.2 (Community IRPs) so
> > that we can help our respective SOs/ACs in the event of a
> > community IRP.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IOT mailing list
> > IOT at icann.org <mailto:IOT at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org <mailto:IOT at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
More information about the IOT
mailing list