[WP2] IRP Checklist

Mon Jul 27 03:28:58 UTC 2015

   1. Overflow panelists – yes or no

I do not understand the objectives nor the me waning of " Overflow"

   1. Single panelist decisions –  no
   2. Standard for appeal to full panel - “clear error of judgment or
   application of an incorrect legal standard” - is this the right standard

No it is not as the term used is subjective ,What are the criteria to judge
whether an action or decision is a " clear error " .PREVIOUSLY used terms
such as " inconsistencies with Article of Incorporation, Bylaws and those
mentioned in Mission and core values are more easy to defend and implement

3 Community override of bone-headed decisions – yes or no
These are colloquial terms if it means "lacking or marked by lack of
intellectual acuity"
Still it is subjective and there is no criteria to decide if such lack of
instinctual acuity is really observed or justified .

4 Length of term

for the panelist ? usually between Three to Four years

5.Term renewal – yes or no

What is suggested in lieu ,if this term is not used ?

6.Exhaustion requirement – yes, no, “where applicable” (not sure I know how
to implement third option)
I agree with you
Regards
Kavouss

2015-07-27 4:37 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150727/d7153f24/attachment-0001.html>