[WP2] IRP

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I hope the intent of my confusion is not mistaken.

I wanted to make sure that the 'only' was implied and would not mind
having it made explicit if there is _any_ doubt.

avri


On 23-Jul-15 12:02, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Greg / Avri,
>  
>  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  
> 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
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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