[WP2] IRP Checklist

[Greg Shatan]

I continue to think that a "standing panel" of 7 is too small (and reducing
to 5 goes in the wrong direction).  I'm not sure how many "sitting panels"
there will be simultaneously, or how many "sitting panels" we expect a
panelist to sit on simultaneously.  Panelists may not have the bandwidth to
take on more than one sitting panel at a time.  If that's the case, there
can be no more than 2 proceedings at any given time (and the choices for
the second panel are obviously limited), unless we reach into the standby
pool.  I would think a panel of at least 9 standing panelists would be
better (so we can have 3 proceedings at any given time without necessarily
going into the standby pool).

I'm not sure where the idea of reducing to 5 came from, or what assumptions
support that.  Those assumptions must include either low incidence of
panels or wide bandwidth of panelists.  I'm not comfortable assuming either.

Greg

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:20 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

>
>    1. Overflow panelists – YES
>    2. Single panelist decisions – NO
>    3. Standard for appeal to full panel - “clear error of judgment or
>    application of an incorrect legal standard” - is this the right standard –
>    YES but may be space for additional ones
>    4. Community override of bone-headed decisions – YES
>    5. Length of term – No Opinion, I can understand the arguments for
>    various terms
>    6. Term renewal – Depends on above. YES if term <3 years NO if term >5
>    years
>    7. Exhaustion requirement – yes, no, “where applicable” (not sure I
>    know how to implement third option) – No Opinion
>
> My answers for the record above in case I don’t make the call as I’m
> moving house next week.
>
> -James
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wp2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp2-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Burr, Becky
> *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 4:26 PM
> *To:* WP2 at ICANN.org
> *Subject:* [WP2] IRP Checklist
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> I’m attaching the current doc, in which I have tried to incorporate all
> input.  We need to reach closure on the following questions:
>
>
>
>    1. Overflow panelists – yes or no
>    2. Single panelist decisions – yes or no
>    3. Standard for appeal to full panel - “clear error of judgment or
>    application of an incorrect legal standard” - is this the right standard
>    4. Community override of bone-headed decisions – yes or no
>    5. Length of term
>    6. Term renewal – yes or no
>    7. Exhaustion requirement – yes, no, “where applicable” (not sure I
>    know how to implement third option)
>
>
>
> 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 / www.neustar.biz
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150724/e902470e/attachment-0001.html>