[IOT] IRP IOT - taking stock and moving forward

[avri doria]

Hi,

Who holds the token for getting the panels established ASAP? The Staff
Org or the SO/AC Orgs? Or the SO/AC leadership group?  It does seem to
be a floundering effort.

thanks

avri



On 24-Sep-18 12:19, McAuley, David via IOT wrote:
>
> Thanks Becky,
>
>  
>
> Sam and Bernie and I will be making a presentation to ccNSO and GNSO
> in Barcelona and a ‘call-to-action’ to SOs/ACs will be a part of that
> – with more emphasis at ICANN63. And I believe IOT members are more
> than willing to help their respective SOs/ACs as they get this going.
>
>  
>
> I may also be writing to SO/AC leaders along the same lines prior to
> ICANN63.
>
>  
>
> The IOT has no formal role in establishing the panel but we will help
> as best we can. As you say, this is critically important – I am very
> hopeful that it can get some intense focus and move toward conclusion.
>
>  
>
> David
>
>  
>
> *From:* Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at team.neustar>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2018 12:08 PM
> *To:* McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com>; iot at icann.org; aloup at usc.edu
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] IRP IOT - taking stock and moving forward
>
>  
>
> Thanks for this effort David – It is critically important that we
> conclude this work that is foundational to our accountability
> efforts.  What is the status on panel selection efforts?
>
>  
>
> *From: *IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org <mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org>> on
> behalf of "McAuley, David via IOT" <iot at icann.org <mailto:iot at icann.org>>
> *Reply-To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com
> <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:13 AM
> *To: *"iot at icann.org <mailto:iot at icann.org>" <iot at icann.org
> <mailto:iot at icann.org>>, "aloup at usc.edu <mailto:aloup at usc.edu>"
> <aloup at usc.edu <mailto:aloup at usc.edu>>
> *Subject: *[IOT] IRP IOT - taking stock and moving forward
>
>  
>
> Dear members of the IRP IOT:
>
>  
>
> As you know, we were unable to gather a quorum for a conference call
> Sept. 6^th despite several reminders from Bernie over a period of
> about a month. This comes on the heel of difficulties gathering
> quorums for calls over the past year.
>
>  
>
> While this is a disappointment, I think it fair to say that post-IANA
> Transition there has been some fatigue in the community. That is
> understandable – nothing I say here is meant as criticism.
>
>  
>
> But as IOT lead I must take steps to ensure that we remain viable,
> especially now that we have significant responsibility for
> establishing the ‘new’ IRP as mandated in Bylaw 4.3(n)(i). It is now
> two years since this bylaw was enacted and we must get on with this work.
>
>  
>
> Therefore, I want to suggest a plan for us, the members of the IOT, to
> accomplish what we must with due regard to moving things along.
>
>  
>
> Here is what I propose:
>
>  
>
>  1. That we take steps, starting at ICANN 63 (with appropriate notices
>     beforehand), to reconstitute the IOT by approaching SOs/ACs with
>     information about such a need. We would administratively organize
>     this through the ICANN Org Policy group. This means adding members
>     to the IOT. No one currently on the IOT who wishes to remain would
>     be barred from staying in the IOT going forward under my plan –
>     but the plan would suggest that those who are no longer
>     interested/participating should please resign, with no adverse
>     inference to be drawn. Those who remain must be willing to
>     participate in work and deliberations. (Bylaw 4.3(n)(i) indicates
>     that the IOT will be established “in consultation with” the SOs/ACs.)
>
>  
>
>  2. In the meantime, I urge us as a group to contribute thoughts on
>     list and to make a quorum for two calls prior to ICANN 63 to
>     address two important issues we are almost finished with:
>
>  
>
>      1. Interim rules of procedure. If we can close on this by Oct.
>         11^th the interim rules could be presented to the Board at its
>         meeting in Barcelona – this would help ensure the new rules
>         are available ASAP; and
>
>  
>
>      2. Repose (Time-for-Filing issue) -  analyze public comment and
>         finish this work (interim rules would protect claimants from
>         any impact from the time-for-filing rule pending finalization
>         of that topic).
>
>  
>
> The two calls would both be in the week of Oct. 8^th . They would be
> Tuesday Oct. 9 at 19:00 UTC and Thursday Oct. 11 at 19:00 UTC.
>
>  
>
>  3. Thus, it is expected we would wind-up work on the interim rules
>     and repose prior to having a reconstituted IOT. If we start a
>     reconstitution effort I estimate we could have a reconstituted IOT
>     by early in the new year – there is plenty of work yet to do. (See
>     Annex A below.)
>
>  
>
>  4. I have been asked to give a summary of IRP developments to a few
>     groups at ICANN 63 and will do so on behalf of the IOT – and will
>     pass slides around to the IOT when I get them done – we could in
>     those presentations mention this plan and we could also encourage
>     SOs/ACs at the same time to get moving with the standing panel. I
>     think it possible that by adding IOT-reconstitution to the SOs/ACs
>     agenda it could help them focus on the standing panel as well.
>
>  
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
>  
>
> David McAuley
>
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154
>
>  
>
> *Annex A – remaining tasks for IOT:*
>
>  
>
>      1. CEP rules to be developed – see section 4.3(i);
>      2. Possibly recommend panel training – see section 4.3(j)(i);
>      3. Develop an IRP panelist recall procedure – see section
>         4.3(j)(iii);
>      4. Possibly develop specialized PTI service-complaints rules –
>         see section 4.3(n)(ii);
>      5. Develop procedures if ICANN elects not to respond to an IRP
>         (see section 4.3(n)(iv)(F) but note that section 4.3(g) may
>         provide all the procedure we need in this respect);
>      6. Develop standards and rules governing appeals (see section
>         4.3(n)(iv)(G) and see also section 4.3(w)). For example, will
>         we allow appeals where there was no response? Or appeals of
>         non-binding IRPs? (see section 4.3(x)(iv)) Or appeals of
>         interim relief under section 4.3(p))?  We may also want to
>         talk about the potential for defaults/dismissals and the
>         allowance, or not, for related appeals;
>      7. Will we develop additional independence requirements for IRP
>         panelists – see section 4.3(q)((i)(B). This includes
>         consideration of term limits and restrictions on post-term
>         appointments to other ICANN positions – see 4.3(q)(i)(B) and
>         see 4.3(j)(iii); and
>      8. Possible review of Annex D, section 4.2 (Community IRPs) so
>         that we can help our respective SOs/ACs in the event of a
>         community IRP.
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot