<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px"><div>Agreed. The IRP is the center piece of this accountability effort. Although I'm sure the professionals hired for the panels would be beyond reproach this is a field where perception often is more important than reality. Having only one party to the process appoint providers is bad optics and that alone is a reason the appointments should be made jointly.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
<div><span style="font-family: tahoma,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><b>From</b>: "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org><br />
<b>Sent</b>: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:56 PM<br />
<b>To</b>: "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net><br />
<b>Cc</b>: "wp2@icann.org" <wp2@icann.org><br />
<b>Subject</b>: Re: [WP2] IRP provider appointment Was: updated documents from this morning</span>
<div> </div>
I think it would be a mistake for the appointment process not to be conducted jointly by the parties entering into it. For one party (ICANN) to be able to conduct the process creates too great of an incentive for that process to favor the party who conducts it. In order to remove the incentive for bias, the appointment process should be conducted jointly by ICANN and the community.<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
Robin<br />
<br />
On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:<br />
<br />
> Becky,<br />
><br />
> These papers looks very good, and shows how much we have achieved. We<br />
> seem to be just about done, so congratulations.<br />
><br />
> I can find on the paper just one note of disagreement still being<br />
> recorded, relating to the appointment of the IRP Provider.<br />
><br />
> * Greg had proposed that the appointment process be conducted by ICANN<br />
> and the community jointly.<br />
><br />
> * I had said I thought that this was likely to be unworkable, and that<br />
> it would be sufficient to have ICANN consult the community on the terms<br />
> of the tender process, but selection itself should be by ICANN.<br />
><br />
> Where did we get to on this? I remember a back-and-forth between me and<br />
> Greg on this list, but don't remember it being discussed by the group.<br />
><br />
> -> If it hasn't been decided by WP2 collectively, may I ask that you<br />
> test the group's opinion as to whether they prefer my approach or Greg's?<br />
><br />
> -> If it has been decided and I just missed it, and the collective view<br />
> was to prefer Greg's proposal, you may remove the footnote noting my<br />
> disagreement: it is not my view that this is such a serious issue that I<br />
> would want to preserve my objection as a minority statement to go into<br />
> the Final Report for Public Comment.<br />
><br />
> Kind Regards,<br />
><br />
> Malcolm.<br />
><br />
> --<br />
> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<br />
> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br />
> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/<br />
><br />
> London Internet Exchange Ltd<br />
> 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY<br />
><br />
> Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br />
> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br />
><br />
><br />
> _______________________________________________<br />
> WP2 mailing list<br />
> WP2@icann.org<br />
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2<br />
><br />
<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
WP2 mailing list<br />
WP2@icann.org<br />
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2<br />
</div></span>