<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Calibri" size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div>Hi Avri,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Important parts of Section 4.3(j)(ii):</div>
<div> </div>
<div>…</div>
<div> </div>
<div>(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</div>
<div> </div>
<div>…</div>
<div> </div>
<div> (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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>(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).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>(D)Final selection shall be subject to Board confirmation, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>David</div>
<div> </div>
<div>David McAuley</div>
<div>Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager</div>
<div>Verisign Inc.</div>
<div>703-948-4154</div>
<div> </div>
<div>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: IOT <iot-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of avri doria<br>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 3:22 PM<br>
To: iot@icann.org<br>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] IRP IOT - taking stock and moving forward</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>thanks</div>
<div> </div>
<div>avri</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>On 24-Sep-18 12:19, McAuley, David via IOT wrote:</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Thanks Becky,</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Sam and Bernie and I will be making a presentation to ccNSO and GNSO </div>
<div>> in Barcelona and a ‘call-to-action’ to SOs/ACs will be a part of that </div>
<div>> – with more emphasis at ICANN63. And I believe IOT members are more </div>
<div>> than willing to help their respective SOs/ACs as they get this going.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> I may also be writing to SO/AC leaders along the same lines prior to </div>
<div>> ICANN63.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> The IOT has no formal role in establishing the panel but we will help </div>
<div>> as best we can. As you say, this is critically important – I am very </div>
<div>> hopeful that it can get some intense focus and move toward conclusion.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> David</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> *From:* Burr, Becky <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@team.neustar">Becky.Burr@team.neustar</a>></div>
<div>> *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2018 12:08 PM</div>
<div>> *To:* McAuley, David <<a href="mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com">dmcauley@verisign.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">iot@icann.org</a>; </div>
<div>> <a href="mailto:aloup@usc.edu">aloup@usc.edu</a></div>
<div>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] IRP IOT - taking stock and moving </div>
<div>> forward</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Thanks for this effort David – It is critically important that we </div>
<div>> conclude this work that is foundational to our accountability efforts. </div>
<div>> What is the status on panel selection efforts?</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> *From: *IOT <<a href="mailto:iot-bounces@icann.org <mailto:iot-bounces@icann.org">iot-bounces@icann.org <mailto:iot-bounces@icann.org</a>>> on </div>
<div>> behalf of "McAuley, David via IOT" <iot@icann.org </div>
<div>> <<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">mailto:iot@icann.org</a>>></div>
<div>> *Reply-To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com </div>
<div>> <<a href="mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com">mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com</a>>></div>
<div>> *Date: *Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:13 AM</div>
<div>> *To: *"<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org <mailto:iot@icann.org>">iot@icann.org <mailto:iot@icann.org></a>" <iot@icann.org </div>
<div>> <<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">mailto:iot@icann.org</a>>>, "<a href="mailto:aloup@usc.edu <mailto:aloup@usc.edu>">aloup@usc.edu <mailto:aloup@usc.edu></a>"</div>
<div>> <<a href="mailto:aloup@usc.edu <mailto:aloup@usc.edu">aloup@usc.edu <mailto:aloup@usc.edu</a>>></div>
<div>> *Subject: *[IOT] IRP IOT - taking stock and moving forward</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Dear members of the IRP IOT:</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> As you know, we were unable to gather a quorum for a conference call </div>
<div>> Sept. 6^th despite several reminders from Bernie over a period of </div>
<div>> about a month. This comes on the heel of difficulties gathering </div>
<div>> quorums for calls over the past year.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> While this is a disappointment, I think it fair to say that post-IANA </div>
<div>> Transition there has been some fatigue in the community. That is </div>
<div>> understandable – nothing I say here is meant as criticism.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> But as IOT lead I must take steps to ensure that we remain viable, </div>
<div>> especially now that we have significant responsibility for </div>
<div>> establishing the ‘new’ IRP as mandated in Bylaw 4.3(n)(i). It is now </div>
<div>> two years since this bylaw was enacted and we must get on with this work.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Therefore, I want to suggest a plan for us, the members of the IOT, to </div>
<div>> accomplish what we must with due regard to moving things along.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Here is what I propose:</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> 1. That we take steps, starting at ICANN 63 (with appropriate notices</div>
<div>> beforehand), to reconstitute the IOT by approaching SOs/ACs with</div>
<div>> information about such a need. We would administratively organize</div>
<div>> this through the ICANN Org Policy group. This means adding members</div>
<div>> to the IOT. No one currently on the IOT who wishes to remain would</div>
<div>> be barred from staying in the IOT going forward under my plan –</div>
<div>> but the plan would suggest that those who are no longer</div>
<div>> interested/participating should please resign, with no adverse</div>
<div>> inference to be drawn. Those who remain must be willing to</div>
<div>> participate in work and deliberations. (Bylaw 4.3(n)(i) indicates</div>
<div>> that the IOT will be established “in consultation with” the </div>
<div>> SOs/ACs.)</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> 2. In the meantime, I urge us as a group to contribute thoughts on</div>
<div>> list and to make a quorum for two calls prior to ICANN 63 to</div>
<div>> address two important issues we are almost finished with:</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> 1. Interim rules of procedure. If we can close on this by Oct.</div>
<div>> 11^th the interim rules could be presented to the Board at its</div>
<div>> meeting in Barcelona – this would help ensure the new rules</div>
<div>> are available ASAP; and</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> 2. Repose (Time-for-Filing issue) - analyze public comment and</div>
<div>> finish this work (interim rules would protect claimants from</div>
<div>> any impact from the time-for-filing rule pending finalization</div>
<div>> of that topic).</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> The two calls would both be in the week of Oct. 8^th . They would be </div>
<div>> Tuesday Oct. 9 at 19:00 UTC and Thursday Oct. 11 at 19:00 UTC.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> 3. Thus, it is expected we would wind-up work on the interim rules</div>
<div>> and repose prior to having a reconstituted IOT. If we start a</div>
<div>> reconstitution effort I estimate we could have a reconstituted IOT</div>
<div>> by early in the new year – there is plenty of work yet to do. (See</div>
<div>> Annex A below.)</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> 4. I have been asked to give a summary of IRP developments to a few</div>
<div>> groups at ICANN 63 and will do so on behalf of the IOT – and will</div>
<div>> pass slides around to the IOT when I get them done – we could in</div>
<div>> those presentations mention this plan and we could also encourage</div>
<div>> SOs/ACs at the same time to get moving with the standing panel. I</div>
<div>> think it possible that by adding IOT-reconstitution to the SOs/ACs</div>
<div>> agenda it could help them focus on the standing panel as well.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Best regards,</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> David</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> David McAuley</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Verisign Inc.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> 703-948-4154</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> *Annex A – remaining tasks for IOT:*</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>> 1. CEP rules to be developed – see section 4.3(i);</div>
<div>> 2. Possibly recommend panel training – see section 4.3(j)(i);</div>
<div>> 3. Develop an IRP panelist recall procedure – see section</div>
<div>> 4.3(j)(iii);</div>
<div>> 4. Possibly develop specialized PTI service-complaints rules –</div>
<div>> see section 4.3(n)(ii);</div>
<div>> 5. Develop procedures if ICANN elects not to respond to an IRP</div>
<div>> (see section 4.3(n)(iv)(F) but note that section 4.3(g) may</div>
<div>> provide all the procedure we need in this respect);</div>
<div>> 6. Develop standards and rules governing appeals (see section</div>
<div>> 4.3(n)(iv)(G) and see also section 4.3(w)). For example, will</div>
<div>> we allow appeals where there was no response? Or appeals of</div>
<div>> non-binding IRPs? (see section 4.3(x)(iv)) Or appeals of</div>
<div>> interim relief under section 4.3(p))? We may also want to</div>
<div>> talk about the potential for defaults/dismissals and the</div>
<div>> allowance, or not, for related appeals;</div>
<div>> 7. Will we develop additional independence requirements for IRP</div>
<div>> panelists – see section 4.3(q)((i)(B). This includes</div>
<div>> consideration of term limits and restrictions on post-term</div>
<div>> appointments to other ICANN positions – see 4.3(q)(i)(B) and</div>
<div>> see 4.3(j)(iii); and</div>
<div>> 8. Possible review of Annex D, section 4.2 (Community IRPs) so</div>
<div>> that we can help our respective SOs/ACs in the event of a</div>
<div>> community IRP.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> </div>
<div>></div>
<div>></div>
<div>></div>
<div>> _______________________________________________</div>
<div>> IOT mailing list</div>
<div>> <a href="mailto:IOT@icann.org">IOT@icann.org</a></div>
<div>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>_______________________________________________</div>
<div>IOT mailing list</div>
<div><a href="mailto:IOT@icann.org">IOT@icann.org</a></div>
<div><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot</a></div>
<div> </div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>