Bruce Others Thanks for useful information. We need to take that into account in our suggestion for " Standing Panel " as well as the IRP. As for the number of members of each mechanisms , it would be a matter for further discussion As for the interaction between "SP" AND "IRP" and their relation ,it would also require some discussion. In regard with reinforcement and modification to Bylaw ,we need to also examine the matter before Transition take place( See Recent Statement of Larry ) Kavouss 2015-02-01 7:41 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Dear Bruce,
Thanks a lot for trying to bridge the gap between the community and board, if this level of communication can be achieved beyond this WG then you can be sure that a lot can get done with dialogue. 2 things I like to clarify:
- Is there a documented reference (perhaps minutes) indicating that board indeed approved the creation and are those documents public? - If staff is unable to implement a board directive, is there a process by which board ensure the implementation gets done OR at least a process by which staff is made to document reasons why the implementation cannot be done at a particular time. Also are such information accessible to the community?
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Feb 2015 04:47, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
With respect to clause of the bylaws:
" 6. There shall be an omnibus standing panel of between six and nine members with a variety of expertise, including jurisprudence, judicial experience, alternative dispute resolution and knowledge of ICANN's mission and work from which each specific IRP Panel shall be selected.
The panelists shall serve for terms that are staggered to allow for continued review of the size of the panel and the range of expertise. A Chair of the standing panel shall be appointed for a term not to exceed three years. Individuals holding an official position or office within the ICANN structure are not eligible to serve on the standing panel.
In the event that an omnibus standing panel:
(i) is not in place when an IRP Panel must be convened for a given proceeding, the IRP proceeding will be considered by a one- or three-member panel comprised in accordance with the rules of the IRP Provider;
or (ii) is in place but does not have the requisite diversity of skill and experience needed for a particular proceeding, the IRP Provider shall identify one or more panelists, as required, from outside the omnibus standing panel to augment the panel members for that proceeding."
The Board approved the bylaw change and requested that the standing panel be established. The bylaws provide for the situation where it is not YET established, but that doesn't mean that we should not have it established as others have pointed out.
There has been no board decision not to establish the panel .
I have heard information from a staff member that there were some difficulties getting the panel established through the current IRP provider.
I have asked for an agenda item for the Board Governance committee meeting next week for the staff to provide an update, and I will then provide an update to this group on:
- the reasons for the delay in establishing the standing panel
- when the standing panel is expected to be in place
As a Board member I am also working on tightening up our oversight that the outcomes from the AoC reviews are actually implemented as approved by the Board.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community