[WP2] IRP Checklist

[Greg Shatan]

The current bylaws specify a range for the number of panelists; I think we
should keep this concept.  If this is to be a standing panel, we'll have to
fill it up front and we can't wait until IRP requests start coming in.
"Sufficient
members of the pool to carry out the number of hearings that are actually
required" is something that will be unknown at the time the panel is
selected (unless we are now advocating rolling selections...).

Also, I would rather see a shorter term with one renewal, say 4+4, rather
than a straight 7 years, so that an under-whelming panelist can be
non-renewed and thus replaced more quickly, without going through the
heartburn of a recall process.

Greg


On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e0d6e462/attachment.html>