[WP2] IRP
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Thu Jul 23 05:38:26 UTC 2015
Hi,
thanks Greg for the quick turn around. My early morning, your late night.
> I'm not sure what an expert in the population means -- perhaps this is
> better left to be dealt with as "other."
i am sure i expressed in inexpertly. What I meant is that we need to
include reference to more that just subject matter experts Often when
dealing with these issues, they effect a certain subset of stakeholders,
e.g. like indigenous peoples, disability, racial and persecuted
minorities like LGBT who have specific social considerations that must
be taken into account. I was looking for some non specific way to make
sure that the specific concerns of populations . Of course Other covers
other, but i think it might be reasonable to be somewhat more specific
about populations. Given the 'last chance' aspect of the IRP, I feel it
is important to include both subject matter and social condition
specifically among the suggestions of possible other experts.
thanks
avri
On 23-Jul-15 07:27, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
> > +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> > <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
> >
> >
> > From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>, Malcolm Hutty
> <malcolm at linx.net <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com
> <mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>>>, "wp2 at icann.org
> <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>
> > <mailto:wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>>" <wp2 at icann.org
> <mailto:wp2 at icann.org> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
> > +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> > <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
> >
> >
> > From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> > <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>>, "wp2 at icann.org
> <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>
> > <mailto:wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>>" <wp2 at icann.org
> <mailto:wp2 at icann.org> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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