[CCWG-ACCT] interplay between 'old' and 'new' IRPs

[Paul Rosenzweig]

On the merits, I agree with Becky completely - that is, I agree that a) my
preference would be for the reformed (or perhaps "restored" is the better
term) IRP to apply to all pending matters; and b) we need to find a way to
deal with abusive filings.

 

My main question though is whether or not this group needs to get into that
level of detail prior to the implementation of a new IRP process.  I am
sure, for example, that the panel appointees will have their own views on
the best process to adopt for their own operations.  Perhaps we can suffice
with a statement of general principles, adopted as part of the IRP charter,
rather than a point-by-point specific code of procedure?

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 

 

From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz] 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 2:18 PM
To: Jacob Malthouse
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] interplay between 'old' and 'new' IRPs

 

.africa is ICANN's self inflicted wound. They had an easy way to deal with
this by following community developed policy in the form of the nGTLD AGB.  

 

The question about retroactive application of a reformed IRP is complicated,
but on balance I come down on the side of retroactivity. The "good faith"
standard adopted by the Board as a Bylaws amendment on the Consent calendar
and over the well reasoned objection of the only stakeholder group that
noticed what was going on (RySG) was illegitimate to begin with and has
created totally anomalous results - some panels have ignored the new
standard and some have followed it.  

 

Having said that, I also think we need much better tools to handle abusive
filings more efficiently and I would love to get this conversation going

Sent from my iPad


On May 21, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Jacob Malthouse <jacob at bigroom.ca
<mailto:jacob at bigroom.ca> > wrote:

I have a question about old and new IRPs. Old being the many currently
active (notably taking up way more panelists than this group's proposal
affords on the standing panel) and how they would relate to a new standing
panel.  

 

If the .Africa appeal drags on for example into a second IRP (as it looks
like booking.com
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__booking.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=
MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=-zsFi
Ndv8qo-utd7EbvmhFCS8B-BDE9DQbVgBmk-tVA&s=74lQ18xg7CdMCqTqDXQ-fVC28DtM3KGdo-F
lty4K9hw&e=>  will), eventually a new appeals system will be put in place. 

 

I'd expect you could then launch a fresh appeal (third IRP) to that new
panel because it is basically a new court, presumably followed by a fourth
appeal of the appeal.

 

So that's a total of four IRPs for .Africa before going to the courts. 

 

Has any thought gone into how this would work (or not?). 

 

Best, J.

 

 

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li
stinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l
istinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw
&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=-zsFiNdv8qo-utd7EbvmhFCS8B-
BDE9DQbVgBmk-tVA&s=tNM-DP1Dbbdz3McKwBJeoqtUXEsVBku2DYzb5PCT1k4&e=>
&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDk
Mr4k&m=-zsFiNdv8qo-utd7EbvmhFCS8B-BDE9DQbVgBmk-tVA&s=tNM-DP1Dbbdz3McKwBJeoqt
UXEsVBku2DYzb5PCT1k4&e= 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150521/688b8fc4/attachment.html>