<html>
<body>
<br><br>
I continue to think that it is a bad idea to have this body meet in
panels of 3, rather than having the full 7-member Review Board hear all
claims. The institution needs the opportunity to meet and
deliberate together as a single body if it is to develop the kind of
institutional weight that it should have (and probably has to have) if it
is to serve as an effective check on the Board. Splitting it up
this way just dilutes its voice. <br><br>
And I'm not clear what "Process for selection from pre-vetted pool
to respond to capacity issues – all panels will be chaired by a member of
the standing panel " means, exactly. Is this a proposal to
allow members of some "standby" pool to hear claims if there
are "capacity issues" with the 7-member Review Board? If
so, I think that's also not a very good idea, for many of the same
reasons as the above. I don't think it's a good idea to give the
power to invalidate Board action to some "standby" arbitrator,
who may (or may not) have ever dealt with a DNS-related claim before, and
who may never do so again, but who is called into duty on a one-off
basis. I think that setting it up this way seriously detracts from
the seriousness and importance of the undertaking. <br><br>
David<br><br>
At 06:43 AM 7/22/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">J. Beckwith Burr<br><br>
<b>Neustar, Inc. /</b> 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 /
<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" eudora="autourl">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
Content-Type:
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
name="Constitutional Court charged with determining whether 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
charged with"<br>
determining whether ICANN has acted.docx"; size=109908;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
creation-date="Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:43:20 GMT";<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
modification-date="Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:43:20 GMT"<br>
Content-ID: <51A35160F2A36C429B7F31CDD2DE998F@neustar.biz><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP2 mailing list<br>
WP2@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a></blockquote><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" eudora="autourl">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic </a> publications etc.
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.davidpost.com
</a> <br>
******************************* </body>
</html>