<div dir="ltr"><ol><li>Overflow panelists – yes or no</li></ol><p>I do not understand the objectives nor the me waning of " Overflow" </p><ol><li>Single panelist decisions – no</li><li>Standard for appeal to full panel - “clear error of judgment or application of an incorrect legal standard” - is this the right standard</li></ol><p>No it is not as the term used is subjective ,What are the criteria to judge whether an action or decision is a " clear error " .PREVIOUSLY used terms such as " inconsistencies with Article of Incorporation, Bylaws and those mentioned in Mission and core values are more easy to defend and implement </p><p>3 Community override of bone-headed decisions – yes or no</p><div>These are colloquial terms if it means "<span class="hvr">lacking</span> or <span class="hvr">marked</span> by <span class="hvr">lack</span> of <span class="hvr">intellectual</span> <span class="hvr">acuity"<br>Still it is subjective and there is no criteria to decide if such lack of instinctual acuity is really observed or justified .</span></div><p>4 Length of term</p><p>for the panelist ? usually between Three to Four years </p><p>5.Term renewal – yes or no</p><p>What is suggested in lieu ,if this term is not used ?</p><p>6.Exhaustion requirement – yes, no, “where applicable” (not sure I know how to implement third option)</p><div>I agree with you </div><div>Regards<br>Kavouss </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-07-27 4:37 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The current bylaws specify a range for the number of panelists; I think we should keep this concept. If this is to be a standing panel, we'll have to fill it up front and we can't wait until IRP requests start coming in. "S<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">ufficient members </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">of the pool to carry out the number of hearings that are actually required" is something that will be unknown at the time the panel is selected (unless we are now advocating rolling selections...).</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Also, I would rather see a shorter term with one renewal, say 4+4, rather than a straight 7 years, so that an under-whelming panelist can be non-renewed and thus replaced more quickly, without going through the heartburn of a recall process.</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 class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Thomas Rickert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de" target="_blank">rickert@anwaelte.de</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="auto"><div><div class="h5"><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" target="_blank">rickert.net</a></div><div><br></div></div><span><div><br>Am 25.07.2015 um 10:34 schrieb Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">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></span><div>Agreed - sufficient members to be mentioned</div><span><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></span><div>Agreed.</div><span><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></span><div>Risk of that is that wrong decisions can be perpetuated. I would only keep what Becky mentioned. </div><span><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></span><div>Yes. </div><span><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></span><div>I can live with 7 years.</div><span><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></span><div>Agreed. no.</div><span><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></span><div>Agreed. </div><div><br></div><div>Thomas</div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><span>-- </span><br><span> Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" target="_blank" value="+442076453523">+44 20 7645 3523</a></span></font></span><span><span><br><span> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog</span><br></span><span> London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a></span><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><span><span><a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a></span><br></span></span></div></blockquote></div><span><br>_______________________________________________<br>
WP2 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org" target="_blank">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
WP2 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>