<html>
<body>
At 02:19 PM 7/24/2015, Greg Shatan wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Courts have full-time judges
(plus judges on senior status, visiting judges and other methods of
filling the bench). I did not think that this panel would be
full-time employees. Rather I expected that they would be either
professional arbitrators who will have cases coming to them from a
variety of sources, or lawyers in private practice who handle arbitration
as part of their workload. </blockquote><br>
I see this differently. I would hope the IRP would <i>not </i>be
not composed of "professional arbitrators who will have cases coming
to them from a variety of sources," or "lawyers in private
practice who handles arbitration as part of their workload," because
they'll have no skin in the game: no long-term interest in DNS
policy-making or ICANN, no sense of how one dispute relates to earlier
disputes or how it might affect later disputes, no appreciation for the
role that different entities and groups play in the whole DNS landscape
or the history of their relationships. That's perfectly fine for
ordinary commercial arbitration, where the question is whether party X
did the work required or party Y has to pay for it. <br>
But the IRP is going to have very different questions before it, and a
much broader power than ordinary arbitrators have (i.e. the power to
invalidate Board action), and I don't think it makes sense to give that
kind of power to an institution structured like that - and doing so will
likely undercut the very power the IRP is supposed to exercise.
<br><br>
David<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">It would be helpful to know what
ICANN's experiences have been to date. In the .africa case there was a
considerable delay in replacing one of the panelists after his
unfortunate death.<br><br>
Greg <br><br>
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:40 PM, McAuley, David
<<a href="mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com">dmcauley@verisign.com</a>>
wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Â <br>
<dd>These are fair points, Greg, but in my opinion seven would be plenty,
and like courts around the world the panelists can handle more than one
“case” at a time. <br>
<dd>I also worry that the larger the panel the more inclination there
might be to stray and find important work to do that the community did
not give to the panel. <br>
<dd>If this number becomes an issue maybe it can be revisited in the
periodic ATRT-like review by the community that the IRP might be subject
to (another thing to decide).  <br>
<dd>David McAuley<br>
<dd>From:
<a href="mailto:wp2-bounces@icann.org">wp2-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:wp2-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:wp2-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
<dd>Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 12:31 PM
<dd>To: James Gannon
<dd>Cc: WP2@ICANN.org
<dd>Subject: Re: [WP2] IRP Checklist<br>
<dd>Â <br>
<dd>I continue to think that a "standing panel" of 7 is too
small (and reducing to 5 goes in the wrong direction). I'm not
sure how many "sitting panels" there will be simultaneously, or
how many "sitting panels" we expect a panelist to sit on
simultaneously. Panelists may not have the bandwidth to take on
more than one sitting panel at a time. If that's the case, there
can be no more than 2 proceedings at any given time (and the choices for
the second panel are obviously limited), unless we reach into the standby
pool. I would think a panel of at least 9 standing panelists would
be better (so we can have 3 proceedings at any given time without
necessarily going into the standby pool).<br><br>
<dd>Â <br>
<dd>I'm not sure where the idea of reducing to 5 came from, or what
assumptions support that. Those assumptions must include either
low incidence of panels or wide bandwidth of panelists. I'm not
comfortable assuming either.<br>
<dd>Â <br>
<dd>Greg<br>
<dd>Â <br>
<dd>On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:20 PM, James Gannon
<<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>
> wrote:
<dd>Overflow panelists – YES
<dd>Single panelist decisions – NO
<dd>Standard for appeal to full panel - “clear error of judgment or
application of an incorrect legal standard” - is this the right
standard – YES but may be space for additional ones
<dd>Community override of bone-headed decisions – YES
<dd>Length of term – No Opinion, I can understand the arguuments for
various terms
<dd>Term renewal – Depends on above. YES if term <3 yeaars NO if term
>5 years
<dd>Exhaustion requirement – yes, no, “where appliicable” (not sure I
know how to implement third option) – Noo Opinion
<dd>My answers for the record above in case I don’t make the call as
I’m moving house next week.<br>
<dd>-James<br>
<dd>Â <br>
<dd>Â <br>
<dd>From:
<a href="mailto:wp2-bounces@icann.org">wp2-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:wp2-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:wp2-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
<dd>Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 4:26 PM
<dd>To: <a href="mailto:WP2@ICANN.org">WP2@ICANN.org</a>
<dd>Subject: [WP2] IRP Checklist
<dd>Importance: High<br>
<dd>Â <br>
<dd>I’m attaching the current doc, in which I have tried to incorporate
all input. We need to reach closure on the following
questions:<br>
<dd>Â
<dd>Overflow panelists – yes or no
<dd>Single panelist decisions – yes or no>
<dd>Standard for appeal to full panel - “clear error of judgment or
application of an incorrect legal standard” - is this the right
standard
<dd>Community override of bone-headed decisions – yes or nno
<dd>Length of term
<dd>Term renewal – yes or no
<dd>Exhaustion requirement – yes, no, “where appliicable” (not sure I
know how to implement third option)
<dd>Â <br>
<dd>J. Beckwith Burr<br>
<dd>Neustar, Inc. /Â Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy
Officer<br>
<dd>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
<dd>Office: <a href="tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932">+ 1.202.533.2932</a>Â Â
Mobile:Â <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367">+1.202.352.6367</a>Â Â /Â
<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>Â /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" eudora="autourl">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>WP2 mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org">WP2@icann.org</a>
<dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
<dd>Â <br><br>
</dl><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" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic" 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>