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

[Greg Shatan]

Designing judicial-type systems is not for the faint of heart.  Ultimately,
you need to solve for a fairly high level of detail or you will get bitten
later on.  That said, I would say that (a) above (scope of IRP) needs to be
solved now, while (b) (dealing with abusive filings), is a next level of
detail (if not next, next level of detail), though I would indicate the
general desire to do fairly early on.  Of course, no matter what level of
detail you get to, there will always be unanticipated issues.

Greg

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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> 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=-zsFiNdv8qo-utd7EbvmhFCS8B-BDE9DQbVgBmk-tVA&s=74lQ18xg7CdMCqTqDXQ-fVC28DtM3KGdo-Flty4K9hw&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
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=-zsFiNdv8qo-utd7EbvmhFCS8B-BDE9DQbVgBmk-tVA&s=tNM-DP1Dbbdz3McKwBJeoqtUXEsVBku2DYzb5PCT1k4&e=
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150521/706bd376/attachment.html>