[WP2] [independent review] Independent Review

Thomas Rickert rickert at anwaelte.de
Fri Apr 17 16:22:16 UTC 2015 

Becky and team.

Can we agree you do not accept comments after 23.59 UTC and then send the docs to us / staff so we can warp up the package for the group for the freeze period. This is the same deadline as Jordan’s group is using.

Just to be clear - comments will be accepted later and discussed during the upcoming meetings.

Thanks,
Thomas

> Am 17.04.2015 um 18:10 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>:
> 
> Yes, I wasn’t real certain about whether to add to template or not.  Will do
> J. Beckwith Burr
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
> 
> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>
> Date: Friday, April 17, 2015 at 11:54 AM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
> Cc: David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com <mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>>, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>, "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA at minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA at minetur.es>>, "wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>" <wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>>, "wp2-independentreview at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>" <wp2-independentreview at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [independent review] [WP2] Independent Review
> 
> Hi Becky and team,
> great work.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> As far as the questions in the document are concerned, there are some that have concrete options in it (e.g. 5 vs 7 panel members), while other questions are phrased in a very open way. Have you considered or would it be possible to provide options for all question? The reason is that it is easier for our group (and potentially for the whole community) to look at options give us guidance. I am sure you have discussed topics such as timeline and that members of WP2 have made suggestions, which could be included.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Thanks again,
> Thomas
> 
>> Am 17.04.2015 um 17:37 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>:
>> 
>> Here is the current IRP template.  Please review and give me comments asap
>> 
>> 
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>> 
>> From: David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com <mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:19 AM
>> To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
>> Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Paul Twomey <Paul.Twomey at argopacific.com <mailto:Paul.Twomey at argopacific.com>>, "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA at minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA at minetur.es>>, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>, "wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>" <wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>>, "wp2-independentreview at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>" <wp2-independentreview at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [independent review] [WP2] Independent Review
>> 
>> 
>> I think there's a danger in trying to be too explicit about the required skill set for IRP panelists.
>> 
>> First, I agree with Paul's original comment that "an ICANN reviewer has to be able to understand and address five arenas/communities: technical, civil society, business, diplomatic and regulatory."  But I take that to refer to the competence of the Panel as a whole, not necessarily to the competence of any single panelist.  I think the Panel - which in my opinion should, for reasons I put forward in an earlier email, decide all cases as a whole - will need to have this kind of very broad skill set if it is to do its job well; but the best way to achieve that isn't necessarily to say that every panelist has to have the whole bundle of skills and experience (which would eliminate a lot of people who I suspect would be very effective members of the panel).
>> 
>> Second, it seems to me to be a little premature to be too specific about the requirements for a "good" panelist.  We don't really know yet how this institution is actually going to function - the kinds of claims that it is going to be hearing or the role that it will end up playing in the DNS ecosystem. Getting too specific about qualifications in advance can interfere with the institution's ability to evolve over time.
>> 
>> Third, because it can be difficult to determine objectively whether any one individual appointee has any particular competence -  whether someone really understands the technologies involved, or the principles of international law, or institutional mechanics, or whatever qualifications might be imposed - these kinds of specifications are very difficult to enforce down the road, and they become suggestions for whomever is making the appointment decision rather than meaningful constraints.  If the Board is to select Panel members (subject to some process for community approval), which I think is the current proposal, I think that a better way to get people with the "right" skill sets onto the Panel is to focus on making sure that the approval process has real "teeth" and will require the Board to find people who are well qualified for the job.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> 
>> At 04:22 PM 4/16/2015, James Gannon wrote:
>> 
>>> Speaking as one of the ‘techies’ around here I would think that to maximize the value and required experience of the panels that while a solid understanding of the technologies involved should be a requirement, there should be facility made to allow the panel to seek expert independent technical opinions where necessary rather than having technical expertise sit on the panel. There may be situations where panelists happen to be technical experts but I don’t think that we need to have ‘has a published RFC’ as a requirement (To analogize)
>>> 
>>> From: wp2-independentreview-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview-bounces at icann.org> [ mailto:wp2-independentreview-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 9:16 PM
>>> To: Paul Twomey; Perez Galindo, Rafael; Paul Rosenzweig
>>> Cc: wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>; wp2-independentreview at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [independent review] [WP2] Independent Review
>>> 
>>> I am adding a list of questions to the template we reviewed in Istanbul and will include this as something on which we are seeking community input.  Increasing the diversity of the requisite skill set will increase the size of the standing panel.  Clearly, the panelists must have a good technical baseline understanding of the DNS, and the interest/aptitude/comfort to deal with technical issues,  and technical and other expertise needs to be available to the panel in appropriate cases, e.g., in cases where the question turns on whether an action or inaction falls within ICANN’s mission statement.  But to the extent we are focused on the Commitments and Core Values, which are largely due process oriented, how much technical expertise is required?
>>> 
>>> FWIW, some of my best friends are hard core techies -;
>>> 
>>> J. Beckwith Burr
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
>>> 
>>> From: Paul Twomey < Paul.Twomey at argopacific.com <mailto:Paul.Twomey at argopacific.com>>
>>> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 5:14 PM
>>> To: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA at minetur.es <mailto:RPEREZGA at minetur.es>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> >, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
>>> Cc: "wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>" <wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>>, " wp2-independentreview at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>" < wp2-independentreview at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>>
>>> Subject: Re: [WP2] [independent review] Independent Review
>>> 
>>> Becky (and team)
>>> 
>>> I have been following this area and your excellent considerations for some time.   (And have been commenting outside on the need to a standing, high level Independent Review mechanism -https://ourinternet.org/#publications/legal-mechanisms-for-governing-the-transition-of-key-domain-name-functions-to-the-global-multi-stakeholder-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ourinternet.org_-23publications_legal-2Dmechanisms-2Dfor-2Dgoverning-2Dthe-2Dtransition-2Dof-2Dkey-2Ddomain-2Dname-2Dfunctions-2Dto-2Dthe-2Dglobal-2Dmulti-2Dstakeholder-2Dcommunity&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=fldCNBCE0oVyuPByj_QZYfW84LsIgP-6kOWrhagdE10&s=qTNI-gxl1LZrdV1zJ55ugHoeEoXX0K6QwfD7yh4kFR8&e=> )
>>> 
>>> One question you pose on the chart is the required skill set.   I think that this should be more than just senior legal.   Having watched the community for 18 years, it strikes me that an ICANN reviewer has to be able to understand and address five arenas/communities: technical, civil society, business, diplomatic and regulatory.   While lawyers and public policy experts can achieve this, and be recognized by others as having key skills, I have found that there is great benefit with mixing senior technical people who not only bring a technical educational value, but also, frankly, are more likely to gain the esteem of the hard-core technical community (who for some reason do not have high regard for lawyers, etc.... )   It has certainly been of benefit at the Board.
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dr Paul
>>> Twomey
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Managing
>>> Director
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Argo P at cific
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> US Cell: +1 310 279
>>> 2366
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Aust M: +61 416 238
>>> 501
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> www.argopacific.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.argopacific.com&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=fldCNBCE0oVyuPByj_QZYfW84LsIgP-6kOWrhagdE10&s=AJE2JpcoTL6l9X3p0opzbrNt14gMKsBGMYZvHsX20Gc&e=>
>>> *******************************
>> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
>> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>>  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=RjJzD9VdNuEVfKeHYSjIjZlP-CrOGYKN74dyyKev3uE&s=eVofF7uY67rNwJfYgE1ocYIv1lmNY34-VsZAdcXh_eA&e=>book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n      <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=RjJzD9VdNuEVfKeHYSjIjZlP-CrOGYKN74dyyKev3uE&s=ai7irdpgq_OcYtcTEnEuuROG1dQhewx8G7mTFtPHlA0&e=>
>> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=RjJzD9VdNuEVfKeHYSjIjZlP-CrOGYKN74dyyKev3uE&s=JyPGhwFr1_6mjHbr1h51G_BAzdnm3Xkgr0kesE-LCGg&e=> publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com        <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0_&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=RjJzD9VdNuEVfKeHYSjIjZlP-CrOGYKN74dyyKev3uE&s=X6LcoBo6M2hioMs1jTHhtroijrBTKXmdf8BD9dTyP1k&e=>
>> *******************************
>> <17 April 2015 IRP Accountability Mechanism Template .docx>_______________________________________________
>> wp2-independentreview mailing list
>> wp2-independentreview at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2-independentreview <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2-independentreview>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150417/ab875b16/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150417/ab875b16/signature-0001.asc>

More information about the WP2 mailing list