<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">David,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm also no fan of the current IRP. I think your distinction is again semantic. When I refer to "revising" the IRP, I'm not suggesting that we engage in timid tweaks. Our goals are the same.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">But practically, it's a lot easier to overhaul the IRP bylaw than to start from scratch. The bones of the provision aren't bad, and it gets us where we're going faster. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I suppose, based on my legal background, I use "revise" when I mean "I'm going to change everything in your document I don't like, and if there's anything left from what you did, consider yourself lucky."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:41 PM, David Post <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">david.g.post@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Greg<br><br>
I appreciate your response to my earlier message. I guess that I
would have thought that more than just "revising" the current
process is called for if the IRP is actually going to serve as a real
counterweight to the Board - something more like the "overhaul"
of the process that the Draft Proposal spoke of. I suppose it
depends on whether one thinks that the existing IRP has successfully
functioned to keep ICANN within its narrow limits or not. I don't
think it has been very successful at all - in significant part because of
the way it was structured in the very Bylaw provisions you quote
below.<br><br>
David<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
At 11:23 AM 7/22/2015, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">David, I think your first issue
is more semantic than substantive. Unfortunately, the word
"panel" can be used here in two different ways. One is
"the list of all people accredited and available to participate in
an arbitral process" (a/k/a the "pool" or the
"standing panel"). The other is "the subgroup of
people in a pool chosen to sit and hear a particular case." (a/k/a
the "sitting panel"). We should probably use the word to
mean one or the other but not both. Â <br><br>
I think we have always contemplated that a "sitting panel"
would be 1 or 3 people. This was never intended to be a
"Review Board" or to have a single "voice."Â
<br><br>
This is intended to revise the current IRP process, and not invent a
whole new process. It's instructive to look at the the current
language in the bylaws, which states in Article IV, Section
3(6):<br><br>
There shall be an omnibus standing panel of between six and nine members
with a variety of expertise, including jurisprudence, judicial
experience, alternative dispute resolution and knowledge of ICANN's
mission and work from which each specific IRP Panel shall be selected.
The panelists shall serve for terms that are staggered to allow for
continued review of the size of the panel and the range of expertise. A
Chair of the standing panel shall be appointed for a term not to exceed
three years. Individuals holding an official position or office within
the ICANNstructure are not eligible to serve on the standing panel. In
the event that an omnibus standing panel: (i) is not in place when an IRP
Panel must be convened for a given proceeding, the IRP proceeding will be
considered by a one- or three-member panel comprised in accordance with
the rules of the IRP Provider; or (ii) is in place but does not have the
requisite diversity of skill and experience needed for a particular
proceeding, the IRP Provider shall identify one or more panelists, as
required, from outside the omnibus standing panel to augment the panel
members for that proceeding.<span class=""><br><br>
and in Section 3(10):<br><br>
Either party may request that the IRP be considered by a one- or
three-member panel; the Chair of the standing panel shall make the final
determination of the size of each IRP panel, taking into account the
wishes of the parties and the complexity of the issues
presented.<br><br>
</span><font face="verdana"><span class="">I hope that clears up your first issue.<br><br></span>
As to the second issue, I think it points out a bigger problem -- 7
potential panelists is almost certainly too small a pool for the
IRP. Currently, the pool is 6-9 members (as seen above).Â
With 7 members in the pool, if two sitting panels of three members are
assembled, we have hit capacity unless members are willing and able to
serve on more than one sitting panel simultaneously. It should
probably be at least 9, if not more, so that recourse to the "free
agent pool" is not necessary under any reasonably foreseeable
circumstances.<br>
</font><br>
We do have a provision for an appeal to the full standing panel (like an
<i>en banc</i> review). If the full standing panel is too big
that may create issues. There may also be capacity issues if
panelists don't have the bandwidth to handle both an appeal panel and a
regular sitting panel.<span class=""><br><br>
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Malcolm Hutty
<<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>> wrote:
</span><dl>
<dd><span class="">I think we are taking a big risk if we assume that whatever we
decide
</span></dd><dd><span class="">here, in this highly compressed timescale, will be right first time.
</span></dd><dd><span class="">Instead, we need something simple initially, and the power to
correct
</span></dd><dd>ourselves later.<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">In the bylaws I think we should simply say that ICANN has a duty to
</span></dd><dd><span class="">provide sufficient IRP panelists to implement the IRP and
effectively
</span></dd><dd><span class="">carry out its cases according to its rules of procedure.<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">And then we write the following self-modifying ruleset into the
bylaws:<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">- the IRP to have the power to create its own rules of procedure
subject
</span></dd><dd>to the bylaws;<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">- the CCWG be empowered to propose "rules and programmes for the
purpose
</span></dd><dd><span class="">of ensuring that the IRP is a fair and accessible form of
independent
</span></dd><dd><span class="">review capable of holding ICANN to compliance with its bylaws for
the
</span></dd><dd><span class="">benefit of the community as a whole".<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">- any rules or programmes proposed by the CCWG shall only take
effect
</span></dd><dd><span class="">with the consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably
withheld<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">- rules of procedure adopted as a result of this process shall take
</span></dd><dd><span class="">precedence over any rules of procedure developed by the IRP
itself<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">- any rules developed as a result of this process shall, once adopted
by
</span></dd><dd>the Board, take effect as secondary bylaws of the corporation,Â
inferior
</dd><dd><span class="">to the bylaws in terms of precedence in case of conflict with the
</span></dd><dd><span class="">bylaws, but otherwise with the same effect as bylaws.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">Examples of the "rules and programmes" we might later
develop could
</span></dd><dd><span class="">include rules for document disclosure in an IRP, principles for the
</span></dd><dd><span class="">determination that a claim is vexatious or frivolous, rules for the
</span></dd><dd><span class="">publication of decisions, and potentially programmes to subsidise
the
</span></dd><dd><span class="">bringing of an IRP case by impecunious parties with meritiorious
claims.<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">Then we can leave how many people on an initial panel, how many on
an
</span></dd><dd><span class="">appeal panel, what principles are to be applied for giving leave to
</span></dd><dd><span class="">appeal, and so forth later, to be dealt with as a WS2-type issue
through
</span></dd><dd><span class="">this power to create "rules and programmes" for the
abovementioned purpose.<br>
<br>
</span></dd><dd>Regards,<br>
</dd><dd>Malcolm.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">On 22/07/2015 14:09, David Post wrote:
</span></dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd><span class="">> I continue to think that it is a bad idea to have this body meet
in
</span></dd><dd><span class="">> panels of 3, rather than having the full 7-member Review Board
hear all
</span></dd><dd>> claims. The institution needs the opportunity to meet and
deliberate
</dd><dd><span class="">> together as a single body if it is to develop the kind of
institutional
</span></dd><dd><span class="">> weight that it should have (and probably has to have) if it is
to serve
</span></dd><dd>> as an effective check on the Board. Splitting it up this
way just
</dd><dd>> dilutes its voice.
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd><span class="">> And I'm not clear what "Process for selection from
pre-vetted pool to
</span></dd><dd>> respond to capacity issues – all panels will be chaired by a
mmember of
</dd><dd>> the standing panel " means, exactly. Is this a
proposal to allow
</dd><dd><span class="">> members of some "standby" pool to hear claims if there
are "capacity
</span></dd><dd>> issues" with the 7-member Review Board? If so, I
think that's also not
</dd><dd>> a very good idea, for many of the same reasons as the
above. I don't
</dd><dd><span class="">> think it's a good idea to give the power to invalidate Board
action to
</span></dd><dd><span class="">> some "standby" arbitrator, who may (or may not) have
ever dealt with a
</span></dd><dd><span class="">> DNS-related claim before, and who may never do so again, but who
is
</span></dd><dd>> called into duty on a one-off basis. I think that setting
it up this
</dd><dd><span class="">> way seriously detracts from the seriousness and importance of
the
</span></dd><dd>> undertaking.
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>> David
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd><span class="">> At 06:43 AM 7/22/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:
</span></dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>> J. Beckwith Burr
</dd><dd>>>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy
Officer
</span></dd><dd>>>
</dd><dd><span class="">>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
</span></dd><dd>>>
</dd><dd>>> Office: <a href="tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932" target="_blank">+
1.202.533.2932</a>Â Mobile:Â
<a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" target="_blank">+1.202.352.6367</a>Â /
</dd><dd>>>
<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>
<<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">
mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>> /
</dd><dd><span class="">>> <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>>
</span></dd><dd>>> Content-Type:
</dd><dd>>>
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
</dd><dd>>>Â Â Â Â Â
name="Constitutional Court charged with determining whether
</dd><dd>>> ICANN has"
</dd><dd>>>Â acted.docx"
</dd><dd><span class="">>> Content-Description: Constitutional Court charged with
determining whether
</span></dd><dd>>>Â ICANN has acted.docx
</dd><dd><span class="">>> Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Constitutional Court
</span></dd><dd>>> charged with"
</dd><dd>>>Â determining whether ICANN has acted.docx";
size=109908;
</dd><dd>>>Â Â Â Â Â
creation-date="Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:43:20 GMT";
</dd><dd>>>Â Â Â Â Â
modification-date="Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:43:20 GMT"
</dd><dd>>> Content-ID:
<<a href="mailto:51A35160F2A36C429B7F31CDD2DE998F@neustar.biz" target="_blank">
51A35160F2A36C429B7F31CDD2DE998F@neustar.biz</a>>
</dd><dd>>>
</dd><dd>>> _______________________________________________
</dd><dd>>> WP2 mailing list
</dd><dd>>> <a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a>
</dd><dd>>>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a>
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>> *******************************
</dd><dd><span class="">> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New
America
</span></dd><dd>> Foundation
</dd><dd><span class="">> blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" target="_blank">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post</a>
</span></dd><dd>> book (Jefferson's Moose)Â
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n</a>
</dd><dd>>
<<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>>
</dd><dd><span class="">> music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">>
<<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0</a>> publications etc.
</span></dd><dd>>
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com" target="_blank">http://www.davidpost.com</a>Â
   Â
<<a>
http://www.davidpost.com     /</a>>
</dd><dd>> *******************************
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>> _______________________________________________
</dd><dd>> WP2 mailing list
</dd><dd>> <a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a>
</dd><dd>>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>--
</dd><dd>Â Â Â Â Â Â Malcolm Hutty | tel:
<a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" target="_blank">+44 20 7645 3523</a>
</dd><dd>Â Â Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
</dd><dd>Â London Internet Exchange |
<a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank">
http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
</dd><dd>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
London Internet Exchange Ltd
</dd><dd>Â Â Â Â Â Â 21-27 St Thomas Street,
London SE1 9RY<br>
</dd><dd>Â Â Â Â Â Company Registered in England No.
3137929
</dd><dd>Â Â Â Â Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough
PE1 1DA<span class=""><br>
<br>
</span></dd><dd>_______________________________________________
</dd><dd>WP2 mailing list
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a>
</dd><dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
</dd></dl></blockquote>
<br><span class="">
*******************************<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" target="_blank">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a></span>book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a> publications etc.
<a>
http://www.davidpost.com </a>
<br>
******************************* </div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>