[WP2] IRP Checklist

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Greg,

>>  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).


One approach could be to set the panel to have “at least” 7 members, and then allow the organization to grow the panel in size if needed to handle the case load at the time – ie don’t set an upper limit.

Right now we have a peak of cases resulting from new gTLD applicants – but it may then drop to a much smaller number of cases.       Apart from the complaints in this round of new gTLD applications - the only other IRP panel decision related to the previous round of new gTLDs.

Currently I think the main constraint on the number of cases is more likely related to the high cost of an IRP panel proceeding, rather than limited by the availability of panellists.     It is currently only a process available to well resourced organisations, where the outcome of an IRP has a material financial benefit for the complainant.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin