Regarding a standing panel for the independent review of Board actions
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
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
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
Hello Seun,
- Is there a documented reference (perhaps minutes) indicating that board indeed approved the creation and are those documents public?
The relevant Board resolutions documented at (thanks to Alan Greenberg for the reference): https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2013-04-11-en#1.d a. Whereas, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team's Recommendations 23 and 25 recommended that ICANN retain independent experts to review ICANN's accountability structures and the historical work performed on those structures. Whereas, ICANN convened the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP), comprised of three international experts on issues of corporate governance, accountability and international dispute resolution, which after research and review of ICANN's Reconsideration and Independent Review processes and multiple opportunities for public input, produced a report in October 2012. Whereas, the ASEP report was posted for public comment, along with proposed Bylaws revisions to address the recommendations within the report. Whereas, after ASEP and Board review and consideration of the public comment received, on 20 December 2012 the Board approved Bylaws revision to give effect to the ASEP's recommendations, and directed additional implementation work to be followed by a staff recommendation for the effective date if the revised Bylaws. Whereas, as contemplated within the Board resolution, and as reflected in public comment, further minor revisions are needed to the Bylaws to provide flexibility in the composition of a standing panel for the Independent Review process (IRP). Resolved (2013.04.11.06), the Bylaws revisions to Article IV, Section 2 (Reconsideration) and Article IV, Section 3 (Independent Review) as approved by the Board and subject to a minor amendment to address public comments regarding the composition of a standing panel for the IRP, shall be effective on 11 April 2013. Rationale for Resolution 2013.04.11.06 The Board's action in accepting the report of the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) and approving the attendant Bylaws revisions is in furtherance of the Board's commitment to act on the recommendations of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). The ASEP's work was called for in ATRT Recommendations 23 and 25, and the work performed, including a review of the recommendations from the President's Strategy Committee's work on Improving Institutional Confidence, is directly aligned with the ATRT requested review. The adoption of the ASEP's work represents a great stride in ICANN's commitment to accountability to its community. The revised mechanisms adopted today will bring easier access to the Reconsideration and Independent Review processes through the implementation of forms, the institution of defined terms to eliminate vagueness, and the ability to bring collective requests. A new ground for Reconsideration is being added, which will enhance the ability for the community to seek to hold the Board accountable for its decisions. The revisions are geared towards instituting more predictability into the processes, and certainty in ICANN's decision making, while at the same time making it clearer when a decision is capable of being reviewed. The Bylaws as further revised also address a potential area of concern raised by the community during the public comments on this issue, regarding the ability for ICANN to maintain a standing panel for the Independent Review proceedings. If a standing panel cannot be comprised, or cannot remain comprised, the Bylaws now allow for Independent Review proceedings to go forward with individually selected panelists. The adoption of these recommendations will have a fiscal impact on ICANN, in that there are anticipated costs associated with maintaining a Chair of the standing panel for the Independent Review process and potential costs to retain other members of the panel. However, the recommendations are expected to result in less costly and time-consuming proceedings, which will be positive for ICANN, the community, and those seeking review under these accountability structures. The outcomes of this work are expected to have positive impacts on ICANN and the community in enhanced availability of accountability mechanisms. This decision is not expected to have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. This is an Organizational Administrative Function of the Board for which the Board received public comment.
participants (3)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Seun Ojedeji