Hello All, As discussed at the Singapore meeting of ICANN and also mentioned at the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires, the Board Governance Committee plans to kick off populating the omnibus standing panel for the independent review panel as described in the current bylaws at: From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#IV "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. - All IRP proceedings shall be administered by an international dispute resolution provider appointed from time to time by ICANN ("the IRP Provider"). The membership of the standing panel shall be coordinated by the IRP Provider subject to approval by ICANN." I have worked with the ICANN legal team and the Board Governance Committee to put together a DRAFT expression of interest. The document references the current bylaws, and also flags the likely changes to the process based on the draft document the CCWG put out for public comment. This includes noting that in future the decisions of the IRP panel are likely to be binding. This will allow us to get a standing panel in place, which will follow any current and new bylaws with respect to the IRP process. I would welcome feedback on this document from the CCWG before we initiate the call for expressions of interest. Regards, Bruce Tonkin