<html>
<body>
I think the current draft outsources far too many functions to the
"IRP provider." <br><br>
The IRP is supposed to be a critical component of ICANN's overall
governance scheme, and it is being given a very serious mandate. As
others have said here, the IRP's core job is an analogue to a
"constitutional court." I can understand the need to have
some 3d party provider "administer the process" (para 7), in
terms of managing the work flow and the like. <br><br>
But why should the 3d party dispute resolution provider be
"coordinating the process" by which the community confirms
Board nominations to the Standing Panel (para 7). That goes way
beyond managing the IRP's workflow - that process controls who gets on to
the IRP and who doesn't. Why should the Provider have any role in that at
all? That's a really critical function - I wouldn't imagine any
country outsourcing it to a 3d-party provider, and I wouldn't advise
ICANN to do so either. <br><br>
Same for determining the procedure to assign members to individual panels
(para 11), coordinating the process by which the community has input into
IRP rules and procedures (para 8), and appointing the Chair of the
Standing Panel (para 7). These are tasks that should be performed
somewhere within ICANN, through some combination of the Board, the
Community, and the IRP itself, so that whomever makes the relevant
decisions can be held accountable for them, which becomes effectively
impossible when the tasks are all outsourced.<br><br>
In the aggregate, this looks like a system that is designed to be
"run" by the provider, in much the way WIPO "runs"
the UDRP (or ICSID "runs" the new PICDRP). But the IRP
has a function - holding ICANN to its Bylaws - that is completely
different than the function of the UDRP or PICDRP, and I don't think this
design is appropriate in the IRP context. It also has the defect
that it passes the buck, and does not solve the fundamental
accountability problem - if the ICC, or ICSID, or WIPO is going to run
the IRP, who holds <i>them </i>accountable? <br><br>
David <br><br>
<br>
At 08:47 AM 7/29/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Iım not sure - I thought the
notion of a tender to be approved by the<br>
community was settled a while ago. That said, Iıd be ok with
approval by<br>
the WS2 subgroup, which will be assisted by experts, etc. Your<br>
recommendation is that ICANN select the provider. So that is the
question<br>
for the group<br><br>
Alt 1. IRP provider selected by ICANN<br>
Alt 2. IRP provider selected by ICANN and approved by
community<br>
Alt 3. IRP provider selected by ICANN and WS2 subgroup<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br><br>
<br>
J. Beckwith Burr<br>
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /<br>
becky.burr@neustar.biz /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" eudora="autourl">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
On 7/29/15, 6:25 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net>
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 |<br>
><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net" eudora="autourl">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net</a>
<br>
>_&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W<br>
>DDkMr4k&m=7V3mMOl7Mz6xY7Y9lE2OK-jqx_Ij1oB3lYJ60yX-fgM&s=4fsm4fx_mfyEjMN68k<br>
>PK7cqn0GocMbqr4Sna0e_Ei6Q&e=<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>
_______________________________________________<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%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" 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>