This seems reasonable - but you omitted (inadvertently I suspect) the important requirement that the Bylaws need to say at the outset (in a Fundamental Bylaw) that the board also has a duty to comply with IRP decisions.<div>David<br><br>On Wednesday, July 22, 2015, Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think we are taking a big risk if we assume that whatever we decide<br>
here, in this highly compressed timescale, will be right first time.<br>
Instead, we need something simple initially, and the power to correct<br>
ourselves later.<br>
<br>
In the bylaws I think we should simply say that ICANN has a duty to<br>
provide sufficient IRP panelists to implement the IRP and effectively<br>
carry out its cases according to its rules of procedure.<br>
<br>
And then we write the following self-modifying ruleset into the bylaws:<br>
<br>
- the IRP to have the power to create its own rules of procedure subject<br>
to the bylaws;<br>
<br>
- the CCWG be empowered to propose "rules and programmes for the purpose<br>
of ensuring that the IRP is a fair and accessible form of independent<br>
review capable of holding ICANN to compliance with its bylaws for the<br>
benefit of the community as a whole".<br>
<br>
- any rules or programmes proposed by the CCWG shall only take effect<br>
with the consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld<br>
<br>
- rules of procedure adopted as a result of this process shall take<br>
precedence over any rules of procedure developed by the IRP itself<br>
<br>
- any rules developed as a result of this process shall, once adopted by<br>
the Board, take effect as secondary bylaws of the corporation, inferior<br>
to the bylaws in terms of precedence in case of conflict with the<br>
bylaws, but otherwise with the same effect as bylaws.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Examples of the "rules and programmes" we might later develop could<br>
include rules for document disclosure in an IRP, principles for the<br>
determination that a claim is vexatious or frivolous, rules for the<br>
publication of decisions, and potentially programmes to subsidise the<br>
bringing of an IRP case by impecunious parties with meritiorious claims.<br>
<br>
Then we can leave how many people on an initial panel, how many on an<br>
appeal panel, what principles are to be applied for giving leave to<br>
appeal, and so forth later, to be dealt with as a WS2-type issue through<br>
this power to create "rules and programmes" for the abovementioned purpose.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Malcolm.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 22/07/2015 14:09, David Post wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> I continue to think that it is a bad idea to have this body meet in<br>
> panels of 3, rather than having the full 7-member Review Board hear all<br>
> claims. The institution needs the opportunity to meet and deliberate<br>
> together as a single body if it is to develop the kind of institutional<br>
> weight that it should have (and probably has to have) if it is to serve<br>
> as an effective check on the Board. Splitting it up this way just<br>
> dilutes its voice.<br>
><br>
> And I'm not clear what "Process for selection from pre-vetted pool to<br>
> respond to capacity issues – all panels will be chaired by a member of<br>
> the standing panel " means, exactly. Is this a proposal to allow<br>
> members of some "standby" pool to hear claims if there are "capacity<br>
> issues" with the 7-member Review Board? If so, I think that's also not<br>
> a very good idea, for many of the same reasons as the above. I don't<br>
> think it's a good idea to give the power to invalidate Board action to<br>
> some "standby" arbitrator, who may (or may not) have ever dealt with a<br>
> DNS-related claim before, and who may never do so again, but who is<br>
> called into duty on a one-off basis. I think that setting it up this<br>
> way seriously detracts from the seriousness and importance of the<br>
> undertaking.<br>
><br>
> David<br>
><br>
> At 06:43 AM 7/22/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
><br>
>> J. Beckwith Burr<br>
>><br>
>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<br>
>><br>
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
>><br>
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /<br>
>> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'becky.burr@neustar.biz')">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> <mailto:<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'becky.burr@neustar.biz')">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>> /<br>
>> <a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">www.neustar.biz</a> <<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" target="_blank">http://www.neustar.biz/</a>><br>
>> Content-Type:<br>
>> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;<br>
>> name="Constitutional Court charged with determining whether<br>
>> ICANN has"<br>
>> acted.docx"<br>
>> Content-Description: Constitutional Court charged with determining whether<br>
>> ICANN has acted.docx<br>
>> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Constitutional Court<br>
>> charged with"<br>
>> determining whether ICANN has acted.docx"; size=109908;<br>
>> creation-date="Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:43:20 GMT";<br>
>> modification-date="Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:43:20 GMT"<br>
>> Content-ID: <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', '51A35160F2A36C429B7F31CDD2DE998F@neustar.biz')">51A35160F2A36C429B7F31CDD2DE998F@neustar.biz</a>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> WP2 mailing list<br>
>> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'WP2@icann.org')">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
><br>
> *******************************<br>
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America<br>
> Foundation<br>
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post</a><br>
> book (Jefferson's Moose) <a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n</a><br>
> <<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0</a>><br>
> music <a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a><br>
> <<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0</a>> publications etc.<br>
> <a href="http://www.davidpost.com" target="_blank">http://www.davidpost.com</a> <<a href="http://www.davidpost.com" target="_blank">http://www.davidpost.com</a> /><br>
> *******************************<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> WP2 mailing list<br>
> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'WP2@icann.org')">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br>
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
<br>
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY<br>
<br>
Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br>Sent from Gmail Mobile<br>