[IOT] segmenting certain IRP comments

[Kavouss Arasteh]

David,
Thanks again,
There are comments that ,if implemented, results changes in the Bylaws. I
am reluctant to take into account those comments . "The train is gone"
Bylaw is now in force and should normally not be changed so quickly
Regards
Kavouss

2017-03-29 21:36 GMT+02:00 McAuley, David via IOT <iot at icann.org>:

> Dear members of the IRP IOT,
>
>
>
> On tomorrow’s agenda is an item described as “5. Attempt to segment out
> some issues for early decision”
>
>
>
> I am going to ask that we consider a list (see below) of certain comments
> that may lend themselves to quick resolution, at least in discrete parts in
> some cases.
>
>
>
> Here are the comments I refer to and my thinking on them:
>
>
>
> 1.       ALAC – a comment
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-irp-supp-procedures-28nov16/pdfr73b8iz2zV.pdf>
> about continuous IRP improvement. I note that there is provision to allow
> for review of IRP at Bylaw 4.6(b)(ii)(F) and that, in my opinion, should be
> sufficient.
>
>
>
> 2.       Some of IPC comments
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-irp-supp-procedures-28nov16/pdft75S74tOev.pdf>
> – regarding invoice date, panel make-up on appeals, and wording about ICDR
> rules themselves not be overtaken as regards appeals, and costs of delay on
> appeal. In my opinion the invoice date as the date to measure when costs
> are due would be fine; I think the appeals panel should be left as is in
> current bylaw and am not sure it would be fair to eliminate the judges who
> ruled below; a rule specifically calling out an underlying ICDR rule seems
> a bad idea to me as that underlying rule could change; and costs of delays
> on appeals can be handled by panel as matter of discretion.
>
>
>
> 3.       DotMusic – These comments
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-irp-supp-procedures-28nov16/pdfzqApbhRMhH.pdf>
> seek to eliminate Board confirmation of standing panelists nominated by SOs
> and ACs. But that confirmation process is in the bylaws and we cannot
> overturn that.
>
>
>
> 4.       DotRegistry – This comment
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-irp-supp-procedures-28nov16/pdfYWMiLvnODO.pdf>
> seeks that any review of an IRP decision can only be made in a court and
> expresses concern about a standing panel of “ICANN insiders.” Again,
> however, the bylaws on this have been adopted.
>
>
>
> 5.       INTA’s comment
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-irp-supp-procedures-28nov16/pdfyVMCP8h4dU.pdf>
> seeks to enlarge the bylaws’ concept of standing and allow those to be
> claimants who not only have suffered harm but who are at risk of imminent
> harm. Again, this would entail changing the bylaws in my opinion.
>
>
>
> 6.       And Auerbach’s comment
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-irp-supp-procedures-28nov16/msg00003.html>
> says that “materially affected” is too stringent for standing and that a
> party should be able to bring an IRP claim should be broadened (e.g. to at
> least include anyone using an IP address or domain name, - in fact it
> should include “everyone”). But this is a bylaw provision.
>
> David
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
> International Policy Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20170330/2817333d/attachment.html>