[WP2] IRP

[Edward Morris]

HI,
  
 Weird formatting problems with my previous submission. Hope this looks better. Apologies for the inconvenience.
  
  

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.?
   
  
  - Standing allows "any person materially affected by a decision or the action by the Board" to "submit a request for independent review". I read that as meaning third parties and ICANN structures, if materially affected by a Board decision, already have the power to file for an IR. The language regarding the SM ("The Sole Member may submit a request...) being an additional power granted to  the SM to submit for an IR in cases where it is not materially affected.
    
   Assuming that's what we are talking about (the discussion could be read as claiming only the SM has the power to file for an IR, period) I'd actually support empowering the SO's to do be able to file independent of wider community agreement.
  
   I could easily foresee a situation where one of our members in the GNSO would be materially harmed by Board action but would chose not to pursue the mature because it simply would not be a good use of the Member's organisational resources. Yet the same action could impact a large number of our members with whom we are charged to represent in ICANN. As has been observed in other forums, our SO's tend not be overly concerned with the issues and affairs of other SO's. I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Rather than have to educate or be educated by other SO's as to the Board violation alleged, which may only impact a specific SO,  might it not be easier and more practical to vest the right to request an IR to the SO's, even where the SO itself was not materially harmed?
    
  
  
 Also...
    
  
  
 In paragraphs 17 and 18 I believe that mediation should be added to the Cooperative engagement and conciliation nomenclature. "Cooperative engagement, mediation and conciliation are all voluntary" (17). "All matters discussed during the cooperative engagement, mediation and conciliation phases are to remain...". We are adding mediation as an option in lieu of the CEP and thus it should have equal standing in the document.
    
    
 I would support adding the option of allowing the complainant (non ICANN) to waive the confidentiality requirement in the CEP, mediation and conciliation phases. Although the procedures need not be open, records and transcripts with redactions as needed and requested for cause by other party should be made available. I realise this might be something that needs to be considered in WS2.
    
  
  
 Thanks,
    
  
 Ed
    
    

  
  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150723/8bbb1000/attachment.html>