[WP2] IRP
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Thu Jul 23 04:47:37 UTC 2015
Hi,
some questions regarding Greg's revision.
>
> 1. The Sole Member may submit a request for independent review of
> any decision or action by the Board that it asserts is inconsistent
> with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws.
>
Does this mean to also include that it is _only_ the the SM that has
this power to submit even if it is not a harmed party?
> a. request assistance from skilled technical, business, diplomatic,
> regulatory and/or other experts;
>
Is it possible to include mention that it should be possible to include
experts in the matter or population under consideration.
> 1. Prior to initiating a request for independent review, the
> complainant is urged to enter into a period of mediation or
> cooperative engagement, at the complainant’s choice, with ICANN for
> the purpose of resolving or narrowing the issues that are contemplated
> to be brought to the IRP. The mediation and cooperative engagement
> processes are published on ICANN.org and is incorporated into this
> Section 3 of Article IV of the Bylaws.
>
How does this combine with the requirement to file an IRP with 30 days
of a Board decsion.
> 1. All matters discussed during the cooperative engagement and
> conciliation phases are to remain confidential and not subject to
> discovery or as evidence for any purpose within the IRP, and are
> without prejudice to either party.
>
Isn't this secrecy of the problems with the CEP. Should this correspond
to prevailing ICANN standards of transparency?
(albeit acknowledging that these are another item that needs further
work, probably in WS2)
> The IRP Panel should strive to issue its written declaration no later
> than six months after the filing of the request for independent review.
Can we make this stronger requiring either a written decision no later
that 6 months or a report of tthe reasons for a delay including an
estimated schedule for completion.
Also the issue of prohibitive cost for entering IRP are not covered. In
order fr the IRP to be accessible to all injured parties there needs to
be some way for the non millionaire appelants to have access.
thanks
avri
On 22-Jul-15 22:05, Burr, Becky wrote:
> This time with attachment. I think it would be really helpful if
> everyone would review and provide comments on Greg’s draft.
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile:
> +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
>
>
> From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 3:40 PM
> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net
> <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>
> Cc: David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com
> <mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>>, "wp2 at icann.org
> <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>" <wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [WP2] this is the document we'll use for our discussion
> of the IRP
>
> I’ve attached a really quick mark up – only one substantive thing I
> saw. This helps to frame the conversation.
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile:
> +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
>
>
> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 2:56 PM
> To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>
> Cc: David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com
> <mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, "wp2 at icann.org
> <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>" <wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [WP2] this is the document we'll use for our discussion
> of the IRP
>
> It was more of a normative suggestion than a disagreement. Perhaps
> agreement in part/disagreement in part with each of you. I don't
> think the document Becky offered up implies or will require volumes of
> detail, at least not in the Bylaws. I think that all of the features
> of this document can be captured relatively easily in a revised Bylaw.
>
> Since one picture is worth 1000 words (or something like that), I have
> revised Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws to capture every aspect of
> the document under discussion, at the level of detail generally
> expected in Bylaws. It's about 500 words longer than the unrevised
> bylaw (which was 1400 words). This is attached, with my changes in
> track changes. This is merely a first draft, and more to demonstrate
> that it is manageable task we have to revise the Bylaws appropriately.
>
> In addition we will need to provide guidance for the implementation of
> these bylaws, with the drafting of rules, procedures, etc., which
> should be done initially in WS2 (which may decide to further deputize
> other groups to carry out various aspects of detail work).
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net
> <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
>
>
> On 22/07/2015 16:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > Malcolm,
> >
> > I think the level of detail we have should mirror the level of
> detail in
> > the current bylaws section on the IRP (Article IX, Section 3),
> unless
> > there are strong reasons to do otherwise. We are essentially
> revising
> > the current bylaws, not creating new text from whole cloth. I
> would not
> > be in favor of providing significantly /less/ detail in the revised
> > bylaws as compared to the current bylaws. We may want to provide
> > additional guidance for the implementation of these bylaws, but this
> > guidance need not and should not appear in the bylaws themselves.
>
>
> From your tone I suspect you meant to disagree with my suggestion, but
> actually it was offered as a way of avoiding the need to introduce the
> volumes of extra detail implied by Becky's paper.
>
> Becky's paper does helpfully identify a considerable number of issues
> that will need to be addressed sooner or later - and I don't think
> it's
> even exhaustive. If we don't want to add huge amounts of new
> detail now,
> and we don't create some form of community power to develop the
> IRP as I
> suggest, how do you suggest we ensure those issues ever get resolved?
>
> Malcolm.
>
> > Perhaps we need to be more careful to keep current bylaws
> provisions in
> > front of us when we are discussing their revised versions.
> >
> > Greg
>
> --
> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
> <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>
> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net_&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=4PlCVCvVfHp07a6lIYWBEt0dPtzAIA9XYLo_EiLKDfA&s=epxyeV_m0VdygwU7HXY_pLWznDJ-anmhV8_gs-9VT3c&e=>
>
> London Internet Exchange Ltd
> 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>
> Company Registered in England No. 3137929
> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the WP2
mailing list