[WP2] IRP Checklist

[Greg Shatan]

David,

Courts have full-time judges (plus judges on senior status, visiting judges
and other methods of filling the bench).  I did not think that this panel
would be full-time employees.  Rather I expected that they would be either
professional arbitrators who will have cases coming to them from a variety
of sources, or lawyers in private practice who handle arbitration as part
of their workload.

It would be helpful to know what ICANN's experiences have been to date. In
the .africa case there was a considerable delay in replacing one of the
panelists after his unfortunate death.

Greg

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:40 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com>
wrote:

>
>
> These are fair points, Greg, but in my opinion seven would be plenty, and
> like courts around the world the panelists can handle more than one “case”
> at a time.
>
>
>
> I also worry that the larger the panel the more inclination there might be
> to stray and find important work to do that the community did not give to
> the panel.
>
>
>
> If this number becomes an issue maybe it can be revisited in the periodic
> ATRT-like review by the community that the IRP might be subject to (another
> thing to decide).
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
>
>
> *From:* wp2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp2-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 12:31 PM
> *To:* James Gannon
> *Cc:* WP2 at ICANN.org
> *Subject:* Re: [WP2] IRP Checklist
>
>
>
> 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/20150724/0ba4d7c5/attachment.html>