<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hi all,</div><div>I offer the comments below:<br><br><div><span style="font-size: 13pt;">---</span></div><div><a href="http://rickert.net">rickert.net</a></div><div><br></div></div><div><br>Am 25.07.2015 um 10:34 schrieb Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>On 24/07/2015 16:25, Burr, Becky wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>I’m attaching the current doc, in which I have tried to incorporate all</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>input. We need to reach closure on the following questions:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> 1. Overflow panelists – yes or no</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>I think we are mistaken in writing the size of the total panelist pool</span><br><span>into the bylaws (if I am correct in thinking that that is what we are</span><br><span>doing); we should instead write in a duty to engage sufficient members</span><br><span>of the pool to carry out the number of hearings that are actually required.</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed - sufficient members to be mentioned</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><span> 2. Single panelist decisions – yes or no</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>No.</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>I haven't heard any argument why this is useful. If there is none, just</span><br><span>drop it. But I am prepared to change my mind if someone offers a</span><br><span>persuasive justification.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span> 3. Standard for appeal to full panel - “clear error of judgment or</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> application of an incorrect legal standard” - is this the right standard</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>This should be a ground of appeal, but not the only one.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Another ground of appeal should be that the decision was inconsistent</span><br><span>with a previous decision of another panel - so looking for the appeal</span><br><span>panel to determine which is right.</span><br><span></span><br><span>There may be further appropriate grounds of appeal: this is something I</span><br><span>would like to keep open for the community to evolve, or absent that for</span><br><span>the IRP itself to develop its own rules.</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Risk of that is that wrong decisions can be perpetuated. I would only keep what Becky mentioned. </div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><span> 4. Community override of bone-headed decisions – yes or no</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>Not in individual cases, no. "Bone-headed" is an entirely subjective</span><br><span>concept.</span><br><span></span><br><span>The community should have the power to reverse IRP rulings by changing</span><br><span>the rules underpinning the rulings - either by changing the bylaws or,</span><br><span>my preference, developing subordinate bylaws that govern the IRP</span><br><span>specifically.</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. </div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><span> 5. Length of term</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>Seven years.</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can live with 7 years.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><span> 6. Term renewal – yes or no</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>No. Non-renewable protects the independence of panelists.</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote><div>Agreed. no.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><span> 7. Exhaustion requirement – yes, no, “where applicable” (not sure I</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> know how to implement third option)</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>No. All parties harmed by ICANN should have the right to be heard and</span><br><span>the possibility of redress, not just 'insiders' in the ICANN community</span><br><span>(like all of us).</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote><div>Agreed. </div><div><br></div><div>Thomas</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>-- </span><br><span> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523</span><br><span> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog</span><br><span> London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a></span><br><span></span><br><span> London Internet Exchange Ltd</span><br><span> 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY</span><br><span></span><br><span> Company Registered in England No. 3137929</span><br><span> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>WP2 mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org">WP2@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>