[WP2] IRP provider appointment Was: updated documents from this morning

[McAuley, David]

Mathieu makes good points and I agree, and, like Mathieu, this is my personal view.

David McAuley

-----Original Message-----
From: wp2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp2-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 12:42 PM
To: wp2 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [WP2] IRP provider appointment Was: updated documents from this morning

Hi all,

We have experienced a selection process for the independent legal counsel in CWG and CCWG. It has merits, and also drawbacks.

I believe however that due to the nature of the panelists, taking into account the public comments on this, we should err on the side of independence in terms of the selection process.

A personal view of course.

Mathieu

Le 29/07/2015 18:39, Burr, Becky a écrit :
> Other thoughts folks?
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/29/15, 12:37 PM, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be a mistake for the appointment process not to be 
>> conducted jointly by the parties entering into it.  For one party 
>> (ICANN) to be able to conduct the process creates too great of an 
>> incentive for that process to favor the party who conducts it.  In 
>> order to remove the incentive for bias, the appointment process 
>> should be conducted jointly by ICANN and the community.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>>
>>> Becky,
>>>
>>> These papers looks very good, and shows how much we have achieved. 
>>> We seem to be just about done, so congratulations.
>>>
>>> I can find on the paper just one note of disagreement still being 
>>> recorded, relating to the appointment of the IRP Provider.
>>>
>>> * Greg had proposed that the appointment process be conducted by 
>>> ICANN and the community jointly.
>>>
>>> * I had said I thought that this was likely to be unworkable, and 
>>> that it would be sufficient to have ICANN consult the community on 
>>> the terms of the tender process, but selection itself should be by ICANN.
>>>
>>> Where did we get to on this? I remember a back-and-forth between me 
>>> and Greg on this list, but don't remember it being discussed by the group.
>>>
>>> -> If it hasn't been decided by WP2 collectively, may I ask that you
>>> test the group's opinion as to whether they prefer my approach or 
>>> Greg's?
>>>
>>> -> If it has been decided and I just missed it, and the collective 
>>> -> view
>>> was to prefer Greg's proposal, you may remove the footnote noting my
>>> disagreement: it is not my view that this is such a serious issue 
>>> that I would want to preserve my objection as a minority statement 
>>> to go into the Final Report for Public Comment.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Malcolm.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>             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

--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

_______________________________________________
WP2 mailing list
WP2 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2