[WP2] IRP Checklist

[Thomas Rickert]

Hi all,
I offer the comments below:

---
rickert.net


> Am 25.07.2015 um 10:34 schrieb Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 24/07/2015 16:25, Burr, Becky wrote:
>> 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
> 
> I think we are mistaken in writing the size of the total panelist pool
> into the bylaws (if I am correct in thinking that that is what we are
> doing); we should instead write in a duty to engage sufficient members
> of the pool to carry out the number of hearings that are actually required.
> 

Agreed - sufficient members to be mentioned

>> 2. Single panelist decisions – yes or no
> 
> No.
> 

Agreed.

> I haven't heard any argument why this is useful. If there is none, just
> drop it. But I am prepared to change my mind if someone offers a
> persuasive justification.
> 
>> 3. Standard for appeal to full panel - “clear error of judgment or
>>    application of an incorrect legal standard” - is this the right standard
> 
> This should be a ground of appeal, but not the only one.
> 
> Another ground of appeal should be that the decision was inconsistent
> with a previous decision of another panel - so looking for the appeal
> panel to determine which is right.
> 
> There may be further appropriate grounds of appeal: this is something I
> would like to keep open for the community to evolve, or absent that for
> the IRP itself to develop its own rules.
> 

Risk of that is that wrong decisions can be perpetuated. I would only keep what Becky mentioned. 


>> 4. Community override of bone-headed decisions – yes or no
> 
> Not in individual cases, no. "Bone-headed" is an entirely subjective
> concept.
> 
> The community should have the power to reverse IRP rulings by changing
> the rules underpinning the rulings - either by changing the bylaws or,
> my preference, developing subordinate bylaws that govern the IRP
> specifically.
> 

Yes. 

>> 5. Length of term
> 
> Seven years.
> 

I can live with 7 years.

>> 6. Term renewal – yes or no
> 
> No. Non-renewable protects the independence of panelists.
> 
Agreed. no.

>> 7. Exhaustion requirement – yes, no, “where applicable” (not sure I
>>    know how to implement third option)
> 
> No. All parties harmed by ICANN should have the right to be heard and
> the possibility of redress, not just 'insiders' in the ICANN community
> (like all of us).
> 
> 
Agreed. 

Thomas

> -- 
>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> 
>                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
>           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
> 
>         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150726/6d0647de/attachment.html>