Thanks to Alice, David, Kieren and others for flagging these specific IRP issues.  I'd like to raise another one, which may be related to the communication issue Alice has raised in the email below, but I'm curious to know whether some degree of transparency can/should be introduced to the process.  Not being a lawyer, it's not clear to me how far confidentiality considerations apply in IRPs, so I'm happy to be corrected if transparency would somehow transgress confidentiality.  But it would seem important to find some means of keeping the community at large, as well as directly affected or interested parties, better informed as to the status of a pending IRP.  Cheers, Suz

 

  

 

---

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Munyua [alice@dotafrica.org]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 12:18 PM
To: David Post; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Party2] Independent Review

Alice
Thanks - it doesn't look like your message got distributed to the group list which I think would be a good idea -
David

At 01:48 AM 3/6/2015, you wrote:

Dear David,

Thank you for this list of topics.

11. Should the IRP be provided with clear time lines for each stage
12 What provisions can be put in place for redress against the IRP provider in the event the process goes off track

Best regards
Alice Munyua
AUC


On 06/03/2015 01:19, David Post wrote:

[This is for the Independent Review subgroup:  Paul Rosenzweig, David McAuley, Jonathan Zuck, Robin Gross, Chris LaHatte, me]. I don't think a separate mailing list has been set up, so I apologize to the rest of you who are working on other issues here]

I'm a little bit late to the WP2 party, but I thought, just for the purpose of kicking off our discussion, we might see if there we can generate a list of topics that we need to cover for the design of the IRP --

I'm sure there are others, but here's a starter group, picking up on some of the "issues" listed in the latest work item list and adding a few others:

1.  Will the IRP be a permanent standing panel, or will it have rotating membership?
2.  What is the scope of the IRB's jurisdiction - what kinds of claims can it hear? 
3.  What standard of review will it use to render its decisions?
4.  Standing - who can bring claims to the IRP?
5.  How will IRB members be nominated and appointed?
6.  Term - for how long will IRP members serve?  Can they be re-appointed?
7.  Will there be a process for removal of IRP members?
8.  Costs - who will pay IRP costs?
9.  How will IRP decisions be implemented?  Are they binding on the Board?  Can they be overturned by the Board?
10.  Should changes to the IRP process be made permanent (i.e., not subject to Board modification)? If so, how can we accomplish that?


As I said, I'm sure there are things missing or mis-stated - but I do think it would be worth trying to put a list like this together to structure our discussion as we plunge forward.
David


*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n    
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com      
*******************************

_______________________________________________
WP2 mailing list
WP2@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2

_______________________________________________
WP2 mailing list
WP2@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n      
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com        
*******************************