[WP2] IRP
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 05:27:47 UTC 2015
My quick thought on Avri's questions are inline below.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 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?
>
GS: As drafted, this is the effect of the language. If we want to give
that right to other parties or ICANN structures, we would need to add that.
>
> > 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.
>
GS: First, I note that the list includes "other" experts, so by definition
it is non-exhaustive. That said, we could add "subject matter experts."
Someone with experience in the specific matter under consideration sounds
more like a witness than an expert, but perhaps I'm not understanding. I'm
not sure what an expert in the population means -- perhaps this is better
left to be dealt with as "other."
>
> > 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.
>
GS: Good question. I haven't studied the procedure carefully. Does the
CEP (or mediation, if that is added) stay the 30-day clock?
>
> > 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)
>
GS: Also a good point. This is probably a WS2 point. i was only trying
to capture what was on the checklist in this draft, so I didn't touch this
part.
>
> > 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.
>
GS: Seems fair to me.
>
>
> 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.
>
GS: It wasn't clear to me how far the language in the checklist about
ICANN covering costs
was intended to go, so I didn't add anything along these lines. If we
expect ICANN to underwrite legal costs for complainants in some or all
cases, that will need to be expressly stated.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150723/388b6925/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the WP2
mailing list