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

Fri May 22 01:07:30 UTC 2015

and requires stress testing?
RD
On May 21, 2015 8:31 PM, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

>  All good questions
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 21, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>   There is a practical issue on determining retroactivity – how far back
> does it go?  Is it only on standards for review, or does it also include
> the method of review (ex: would a pending IRP that already has a panel in
> place then have to start anew before the “new” IRP panel?)  At what point
> would application of different standards be something that could be
> detrimental to parties within an ongoing IRP (such as those that have
> expended large amounts of money on counsel arguing to one standard, only to
> be required to move to another?)  If there would be more time required for
> the existing IRPs to reach conclusion because of retroactive application,
> how are the interests of those who are the other impacted parties (such as
> competing applicants for new gTLD strings) considered in any additional
> time requirements? I’m not expressing an opinion either way (retroactivity
> or not) but just raise these as issues of concern as we look at the
> retroactive/nonretroactive issue.
>
>
>   From: Jacob Malthouse <jacob at bigroom.ca>
> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 3:39 PM
> To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] interplay between 'old' and 'new' IRPs
>
>   Thanks Becky and Paul, this is helpful insight and agree with both your
> approaches.
>
>
>
>      Jacob Malthouse
>  Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc.
> 778-960-6527
> www.bigroom.ca
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bigroom.ca_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GSsQwGltQ0sYNiPpnUCgvKCNuCdmpmOlpJEvQxlSsjg&s=7AUQ9XaxnpM3KlOeRqScAGpphxPPIi_JWvaRVFLHKzY&e=>
>
>
> On 21 May 2015 at 13:52, 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
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>>
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>>
>> Link to my PGP Key
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fcontent-26view-3Darticle-26id-3D19-26Itemid-3D9&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GSsQwGltQ0sYNiPpnUCgvKCNuCdmpmOlpJEvQxlSsjg&s=VFmXN0kKWVRZsfZLkxOuFY5Rgrwnmq2rDMhP0960idg&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *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=
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>     Jacob Malthouse
>  Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc.
> 778-960-6527
> www.bigroom.ca
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bigroom.ca_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=GSsQwGltQ0sYNiPpnUCgvKCNuCdmpmOlpJEvQxlSsjg&s=7AUQ9XaxnpM3KlOeRqScAGpphxPPIi_JWvaRVFLHKzY&e=>
>
>
>    _______________________________________________
> 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=GSsQwGltQ0sYNiPpnUCgvKCNuCdmpmOlpJEvQxlSsjg&s=IDQSDCPC8GMt1PfFlcDBapAwV3x9BCOgKl9Ep_aDeD8&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/20150521/67fe3717/attachment.html>