[IOT] Some IRP comments treatment for Frist Reading
McAuley, David
dmcauley at verisign.com
Thu May 18 12:20:15 UTC 2017
My comments here are as a participant, not as lead.
As to 10-year terms, I think that would require amending bylaw 4.3(j)(iii) which says, in part: “Appointments to the Standing Panel shall be made for a fixed term of five years with no removal except for …”
As for Mike’s question, some background. The CCWG Work Stream One final report said, in part (Annex 07, paragraph 42): “To ensure independence, term limits should apply (five years, no renewal) ….”
The words “no renewal” did not make it into the bylaws and so now we are wrestling with this.
When this came up on a recent call I was of the view that two five year terms would be best but I did not press my views when Malcolm and Avri felt no renewal was best – there were no other views expressed (Greg was not on that call as I remember).
So this facet seems unsettled yet, especially given Avri’s desire to give it some further thought. I think we should discuss further today when it comes up.
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
From: iot-bounces at icann.org [mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:40 PM
To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
Cc: iot at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] Some IRP comments treatment for Frist Reading
I would balance that hypothetical risk against all that we would lose with regard to knowledge and experience if we have but a single five-year term for each panelist. I would also be more optimistic about the integrity of panelists, their understanding that impartiality and independence is integral to the position, and their desire to execute their duties to the best of their ability. I would also consider that this is not their only gig.
I would also consider the fact that any panelist seeking reappointment would have to be approved by the SO/ACs and not merely by ICANN, so any appearance of sucking up to ICANN could be counterproductive.
Do we have any reason to believe or evidence that points to the current crop of panelists pandering to ICANN? They seem like a pretty independent bunch to me.
I suppose one compromise could be a single 10-year term. Thoughts?
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
That the lack of hope of a second term is the best guarantee of independence.
(An argument that has a certain pedigree, for fans of the Federalist Papers).
Sent from my iDevice; please excuse terseness and typos.
On 17 May 2017, at 21:54, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
Sorry to miss calls and not have reviewed transcripts... But, briefly, what is argument to limit to one term?
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:(415)%20738-8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com
On May 17, 2017 8:03 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
Malcolm, thanks for reviving the undecided point. Let's make sure that (in addition to Mike) we get the views of those who have not yet weighed in. If "one and done" is the active consensus of the group that's fine. But let's make sure we have achieved consensus by viewpoint and not by exhaustion.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
I would support renewal. It is important for panelists to have experience in these matters, so to me that justifies at least one renewal term.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:(415)%20738-8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
On 2017-05-12 16:46, McAuley, David via IOT wrote:
Even though we appeared to agree on the call May 3rd that panelists
would have one five-year term with no opportunity for renewal, we
discussed that notion further yesterday and the balance tilted toward
allowing for a one-time renewal of an additional five-year term (total
cap on service as panelist at ten years). The discussion yesterday on
this issue is largely captured on pages 18 - 22 of the "Raw Caption
Notes" of the call accessible here by scrolling down:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=64084338
I have now read the "Raw caption notes" (transcript), and I see that
Greg was the only person speaking in favour of a change of position.
Avri noted that Greg's points "had made her less certain of her position"
but that "I haven't completely switched over."
Nobody else expressed a view.
As a matter of process, I therefore assume that the position agreed
on the previous call remains intact. i.e. no renewal.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm
--
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://www.linx.net/publicaffairs
London Internet Exchange Ltd
24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________
IOT mailing list
IOT at icann.org<mailto:IOT at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
_______________________________________________
IOT mailing list
IOT at icann.org<mailto: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/20170518/84e92335/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the IOT
mailing list