Re: [ALAC] Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel
Dear all In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel. Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT. Maureen Dear SO/AC Chairs : I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group. As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process. We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established. *In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). * The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT. *We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work.* From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July. Let us know how we can help you move this work along. Best regards, David Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Hi All, Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that. If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. Thanks AK On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all
In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel.
Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT.
Maureen
Dear SO/AC Chairs :
I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group.
As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process.
We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established.
*In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). *
The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT.
*We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work.*
From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July.
Let us know how we can help you move this work along.
Best regards,
David
Sent from my iPhone
David A. Olive Senior Vice President
Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp... - SOIs of members are found in a sub-page On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest. Justine ------ On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi All, Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that. If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. Thanks
AK
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all
In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel.
Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT.
Maureen
Dear SO/AC Chairs :
I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group.
As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process.
We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established.
*In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). *
The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT.
*We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work.*
From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July.
Let us know how we can help you move this work along.
Best regards,
David
Sent from my iPhone
David A. Olive Senior Vice President
Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do.. Thanks. On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp...
- SOIs of members are found in a sub-page
On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi All, Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that. If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. Thanks
AK
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all
In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel.
Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT.
Maureen
Dear SO/AC Chairs :
I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group.
As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process.
We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established.
*In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). *
The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT.
*We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work.*
From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July.
Let us know how we can help you move this work along.
Best regards,
David
Sent from my iPhone
David A. Olive Senior Vice President
Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree. Justine ------ On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do.. Thanks.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp...
- SOIs of members are found in a sub-page
On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi All, Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that. If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. Thanks
AK
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all
In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel.
Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT.
Maureen
Dear SO/AC Chairs :
I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group.
As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process.
We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established.
*In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). *
The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT.
*We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work.*
From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July.
Let us know how we can help you move this work along.
Best regards,
David
Sent from my iPhone
David A. Olive Senior Vice President
Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level of skill and experience in such panels. Holly
On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng <mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng>> wrote: Hi Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do.. Thanks.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> wrote: See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp... <https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp...> SOIs of members are found in a sub-page
On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng <mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng>> wrote: Hi All, Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that. If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. Thanks
AK
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all
In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel.
Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT.
Maureen
Dear SO/AC Chairs :
I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group.
As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process.
We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established.
In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT).
The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT.
We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work.
From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July.
Let us know how we can help you move this work along.
Best regards,
David
Sent from my iPhone
David A. Olive Senior Vice President
Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
HI, But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to gauge that based on diversity. For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it That why I think the key skills required is diversity and understanding Thanks AK On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level of skill and experience in such panels.
Holly
On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do.. Thanks.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp...
- SOIs of members are found in a sub-page
On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi All, Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that. If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. Thanks
AK
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all
In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel.
Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT.
Maureen
Dear SO/AC Chairs :
I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group.
As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process.
We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established.
*In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). *
The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT.
*We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work.*
From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July.
Let us know how we can help you move this work along.
Best regards,
David
Sent from my iPhone
David A. Olive Senior Vice President
Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
AK. I am now a bit confused with your latest reply. I don't think anyone is arguing against the desirability for diversity. But as you pointed out: *if you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it.* And I agree with you! That's what I was saying before and I will say it again: To facilitate the best peer review for establishing an IRP panel, we need experienced arbitrators/counsels who understand what it takes to do the job. The job is not a generalized one and I don't think NomCom necessarily has what it takes because NomCom isn't mandated to have lawyers, let alone experienced arbitrators/counsels, make up its full membership. Participation in the IRP-IOT on the other hand is predicated on one having professional litigation/arbitration/mediation experience, folks who practise as litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and thus understand the job involved. So unlike NomCom, we know that the IRP-IOT is constituted only with litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and that's why -- between a limited choice of NomCom and the IRP-IOT -- I think the IRP-IOT is a better fit than NomCom. As to the 'lack of diversity' in the IRP-IOT membership, well that's subject to whichever litigators, arbitrators, mediators who responded to the open call for members. Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of expanding the choice of bodies, one with diversity -- I don't know if there is an appetite for yet another body -- but for now, NomCom simply isn't a good option. Justine ------ On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 21:13, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
HI, But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to gauge that based on diversity. For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it That why I think the key skills required is diversity and understanding Thanks
AK
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level of skill and experience in such panels.
Holly
On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do.. Thanks.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp...
- SOIs of members are found in a sub-page
On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi All, Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that. If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. Thanks
AK
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all
In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel.
Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT.
Maureen
Dear SO/AC Chairs :
I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group.
As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process.
We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established.
*In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). *
The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT.
*We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work.*
From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July.
Let us know how we can help you move this work along.
Best regards,
David
Sent from my iPhone
David A. Olive Senior Vice President
Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
Hi Justine, I think we agree on most of the issues. However there is a bit of a mix up. Yes the evaluation panel does not need to be lawyers, but they must understand the profession. That is what I mean in my previous email. I was referring to the standing committee and the required experience for the committee. I also agree it does not have to be NOMCOM but the evaluation panel requires better diversity than the current IRP-IOT. I think we can now have a proposal back to David Olive. Thanks AK On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:21 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
AK.
I am now a bit confused with your latest reply. I don't think anyone is arguing against the desirability for diversity. But as you pointed out:
*if you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it.*
And I agree with you! That's what I was saying before and I will say it again:
To facilitate the best peer review for establishing an IRP panel, we need experienced arbitrators/counsels who understand what it takes to do the job. The job is not a generalized one and I don't think NomCom necessarily has what it takes because NomCom isn't mandated to have lawyers, let alone experienced arbitrators/counsels, make up its full membership.
Participation in the IRP-IOT on the other hand is predicated on one having professional litigation/arbitration/mediation experience, folks who practise as litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and thus understand the job involved. So unlike NomCom, we know that the IRP-IOT is constituted only with litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and that's why -- between a limited choice of NomCom and the IRP-IOT -- I think the IRP-IOT is a better fit than NomCom.
As to the 'lack of diversity' in the IRP-IOT membership, well that's subject to whichever litigators, arbitrators, mediators who responded to the open call for members.
Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of expanding the choice of bodies, one with diversity -- I don't know if there is an appetite for yet another body -- but for now, NomCom simply isn't a good option.
Justine ------
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 21:13, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
HI, But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to gauge that based on diversity. For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it That why I think the key skills required is diversity and understanding Thanks
AK
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level of skill and experience in such panels.
Holly
On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do.. Thanks.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp...
- SOIs of members are found in a sub-page
On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi All, Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that. If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. Thanks
AK
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all > > In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I > forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how > ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel. > > Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being > recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. > Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge > of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current > IRP-IOT. > > Maureen > > > Dear SO/AC Chairs : > > > > I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this > representative group. Understanding the level of work already > underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward > might be to leverage an existing community group. > > > > As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent > Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a > standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside > over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in > consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory > Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the > Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs > and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to > be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step > process. > > > > We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs > [secure-web.cisco.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as > to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary > and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There > is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort > of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and > ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the > Standing Panel established. > > > > *In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way > to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight > Team (IRP-IOT). * > > > > The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of > people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international > arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill > sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this > important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly > work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along > with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT. > > > > *We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, > separate representative group to do this work.* > > > > From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to > identify and get this representative group up and running so that the > panel selection process can move forward – including identification > of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in > time to start work when the deadline for the submission of > expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 > July. > > > > Let us know how we can help you move this work along. > > > > Best regards, > > David > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > David A. Olive > Senior Vice President > > Policy Development Support > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of > your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list > accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( > https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the > Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, > including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling > delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
-- Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
Interesting discussion. This was a response I gave to the SO-AC Chairs following David's initial request in May. It was based on consultation with people who are far more knowledgeable about the topic than myself. And Alan has pointed out, that it might aid the current discussion. Hi All, Given that I had not been heavily involved in the CCWG Accountability or the IRP activities, I took the opportunity to consult with the past ALAC Chairs, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crépin-Leblond and Alan Greenberg. I agree with Keith that the current IOT is likely to be fully occupied but more importantly is not constituted to represent the AC/SOs which are Bylaw-mandated to select the Standing Panel. Although David said that the AC/SOs “helped populate” the current IOT, we could find no actual record of whether any of the IOT members were formally endorsed by any AC or SO. Certainly the ALAC did not do so. Moreover, as I recall, there was pushback at the time that the IOT was reconstituted in that the selection was done by the Board itself (or a delegated committee). Lastly, based on the Statements of Interest of the IOT members, it is heavily skewed in favour of particular constituencies which again makes it a poor choice for selecting a judicial panel when its own constituencies may be participants in future IRPs. I believe that the only choice is that a new group be constituted to address the various steps called for in the Bylaws. It should be populated with formally appointed representatives from the AC/SOs that wish to participate so that they can act on behalf of the AC/SOs in compliance with the Bylaws. To ensure coverage but still have a lean group. I would suggest that each AC/SO have no more than 2 seats on this group. Those appointed to the group must have a strong understanding of the IRP and the role of the standing panel, but cannot be expected to have the skills or contacts to populate the panel. The group must be supported by an external recruitment organization that can provide the needed skill in identifying and recruiting potential qualified judicial experts who are interested in acquiring the requisite technical knowledge for the panel. There will also be a need to periodically fill vacancies on the panel and repopulate based on the five-year terms. The Bylaws are silent on how this will be done, but I suggest that this not be a focus of the current group but that their experience in populating the initial Standing Panel be factored in when specifying the ongoing repopulation procedure. That being said, consideration of the terms of all panelists expiring simultaneously should be given to ensure always having a functioning and skilled panel. Maureen . On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 8:29 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Justine, I think we agree on most of the issues. However there is a bit of a mix up. Yes the evaluation panel does not need to be lawyers, but they must understand the profession. That is what I mean in my previous email. I was referring to the standing committee and the required experience for the committee. I also agree it does not have to be NOMCOM but the evaluation panel requires better diversity than the current IRP-IOT. I think we can now have a proposal back to David Olive.
Thanks AK
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:21 AM Justine Chew < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
AK.
I am now a bit confused with your latest reply. I don't think anyone is arguing against the desirability for diversity. But as you pointed out:
*if you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it.*
And I agree with you! That's what I was saying before and I will say it again:
To facilitate the best peer review for establishing an IRP panel, we need experienced arbitrators/counsels who understand what it takes to do the job. The job is not a generalized one and I don't think NomCom necessarily has what it takes because NomCom isn't mandated to have lawyers, let alone experienced arbitrators/counsels, make up its full membership.
Participation in the IRP-IOT on the other hand is predicated on one having professional litigation/arbitration/mediation experience, folks who practise as litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and thus understand the job involved. So unlike NomCom, we know that the IRP-IOT is constituted only with litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and that's why -- between a limited choice of NomCom and the IRP-IOT -- I think the IRP-IOT is a better fit than NomCom.
As to the 'lack of diversity' in the IRP-IOT membership, well that's subject to whichever litigators, arbitrators, mediators who responded to the open call for members.
Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of expanding the choice of bodies, one with diversity -- I don't know if there is an appetite for yet another body -- but for now, NomCom simply isn't a good option.
Justine ------
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 21:13, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
HI, But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to gauge that based on diversity. For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it That why I think the key skills required is diversity and understanding Thanks
AK
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level of skill and experience in such panels.
Holly
On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do.. Thanks.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp...
- SOIs of members are found in a sub-page
On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
> Hi All, > Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but > I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of > IRP-IOT. > I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. > Maybe Greg can also help with that. > If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it > if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a > team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on > the applications received. > Thanks > > AK > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard < > maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I >> forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how >> ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel. >> >> Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being >> recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. >> Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge >> of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current >> IRP-IOT. >> >> Maureen >> >> >> Dear SO/AC Chairs : >> >> >> >> I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this >> representative group. Understanding the level of work already >> underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward >> might be to leverage an existing community group. >> >> >> >> As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent >> Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of >> a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside >> over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in >> consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory >> Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the >> Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs >> and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to >> be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step >> process. >> >> >> >> We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs >> [secure-web.cisco.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as >> to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary >> and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There >> is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort >> of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and >> ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the >> Standing Panel established. >> >> >> >> *In looking at the groups that are already active, >> one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of >> the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). * >> >> >> >> The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of >> people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international >> arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill >> sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this >> important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly >> work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along >> with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT. >> >> >> >> *We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, >> separate representative group to do this work.* >> >> >> >> From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to >> identify and get this representative group up and running so that the >> panel selection process can move forward – including >> identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the >> community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the >> submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires >> on 31 July. >> >> >> >> Let us know how we can help you move this work along. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> David >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> David A. Olive >> Senior Vice President >> >> Policy Development Support >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > > Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin > <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal > <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal > <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of > your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list > accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( > https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the > Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, > including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling > delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Maureen, You are a genius. Or should I say sometimes a genius. Lol. AK On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, 08:00 Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting discussion.
This was a response I gave to the SO-AC Chairs following David's initial request in May. It was based on consultation with people who are far more knowledgeable about the topic than myself. And Alan has pointed out, that it might aid the current discussion.
Hi All,
Given that I had not been heavily involved in the CCWG Accountability or the IRP activities, I took the opportunity to consult with the past ALAC Chairs, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crépin-Leblond and Alan Greenberg.
I agree with Keith that the current IOT is likely to be fully occupied but more importantly is not constituted to represent the AC/SOs which are Bylaw-mandated to select the Standing Panel. Although David said that the AC/SOs “helped populate” the current IOT, we could find no actual record of whether any of the IOT members were formally endorsed by any AC or SO. Certainly the ALAC did not do so.
Moreover, as I recall, there was pushback at the time that the IOT was reconstituted in that the selection was done by the Board itself (or a delegated committee).
Lastly, based on the Statements of Interest of the IOT members, it is heavily skewed in favour of particular constituencies which again makes it a poor choice for selecting a judicial panel when its own constituencies may be participants in future IRPs.
I believe that the only choice is that a new group be constituted to address the various steps called for in the Bylaws. It should be populated with formally appointed representatives from the AC/SOs that wish to participate so that they can act on behalf of the AC/SOs in compliance with the Bylaws.
To ensure coverage but still have a lean group. I would suggest that each AC/SO have no more than 2 seats on this group. Those appointed to the group must have a strong understanding of the IRP and the role of the standing panel, but cannot be expected to have the skills or contacts to populate the panel. The group must be supported by an external recruitment organization that can provide the needed skill in identifying and recruiting potential qualified judicial experts who are interested in acquiring the requisite technical knowledge for the panel.
There will also be a need to periodically fill vacancies on the panel and repopulate based on the five-year terms. The Bylaws are silent on how this will be done, but I suggest that this not be a focus of the current group but that their experience in populating the initial Standing Panel be factored in when specifying the ongoing repopulation procedure. That being said, consideration of the terms of all panelists expiring simultaneously should be given to ensure always having a functioning and skilled panel.
Maureen .
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 8:29 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Justine, I think we agree on most of the issues. However there is a bit of a mix up. Yes the evaluation panel does not need to be lawyers, but they must understand the profession. That is what I mean in my previous email. I was referring to the standing committee and the required experience for the committee. I also agree it does not have to be NOMCOM but the evaluation panel requires better diversity than the current IRP-IOT. I think we can now have a proposal back to David Olive.
Thanks AK
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:21 AM Justine Chew < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
AK.
I am now a bit confused with your latest reply. I don't think anyone is arguing against the desirability for diversity. But as you pointed out:
*if you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it.*
And I agree with you! That's what I was saying before and I will say it again:
To facilitate the best peer review for establishing an IRP panel, we need experienced arbitrators/counsels who understand what it takes to do the job. The job is not a generalized one and I don't think NomCom necessarily has what it takes because NomCom isn't mandated to have lawyers, let alone experienced arbitrators/counsels, make up its full membership.
Participation in the IRP-IOT on the other hand is predicated on one having professional litigation/arbitration/mediation experience, folks who practise as litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and thus understand the job involved. So unlike NomCom, we know that the IRP-IOT is constituted only with litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and that's why -- between a limited choice of NomCom and the IRP-IOT -- I think the IRP-IOT is a better fit than NomCom.
As to the 'lack of diversity' in the IRP-IOT membership, well that's subject to whichever litigators, arbitrators, mediators who responded to the open call for members.
Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of expanding the choice of bodies, one with diversity -- I don't know if there is an appetite for yet another body -- but for now, NomCom simply isn't a good option.
Justine ------
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 21:13, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
HI, But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to gauge that based on diversity. For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it That why I think the key skills required is diversity and understanding Thanks
AK
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level of skill and experience in such panels.
Holly
On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do.. Thanks.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
> See: > https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp... > > - SOIs of members are found in a sub-page > > > On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group > to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a > specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- > think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to > recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members > who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we > would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest. > > Justine > ------ > > > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < > oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but >> I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of >> IRP-IOT. >> I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. >> Maybe Greg can also help with that. >> If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it >> if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a >> team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on >> the applications received. >> Thanks >> >> AK >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard < >> maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I >>> forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how >>> ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel. >>> >>> Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being >>> recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. >>> Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge >>> of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current >>> IRP-IOT. >>> >>> Maureen >>> >>> >>> Dear SO/AC Chairs : >>> >>> >>> >>> I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming >>> this representative group. Understanding the level of work already >>> underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward >>> might be to leverage an existing community group. >>> >>> >>> >>> As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent >>> Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of >>> a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to >>> preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN >>> shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory >>> Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the >>> Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs >>> and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing >>> panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as >>> part of the four-step process. >>> >>> >>> >>> We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs >>> [secure-web.cisco.com] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as >>> to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary >>> and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There >>> is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort >>> of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and >>> ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the >>> Standing Panel established. >>> >>> >>> >>> *In looking at the groups that are already active, >>> one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of >>> the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). * >>> >>> >>> >>> The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of >>> people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international >>> arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill >>> sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this >>> important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly >>> work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along >>> with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT. >>> >>> >>> >>> *We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, >>> separate representative group to do this work.* >>> >>> >>> >>> From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to >>> identify and get this representative group up and running so that the >>> panel selection process can move forward – including >>> identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the >>> community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the >>> submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires >>> on 31 July. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let us know how we can help you move this work along. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> >>> David A. Olive >>> Senior Vice President >>> >>> Policy Development Support >>> >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> ALAC Working Wiki: >>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >> >> >> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin >> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal >> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal >> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
Right. David Olive said, *"We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work. From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July."* I did raise a concern/perception of conflict of interest on the part of IRP-IOT members, but still think NomCom isn't the suitable body to establish the panel, so let's stick with "*forming a new, separate representative group to do this work*" then. All good. Justine ------ On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 17:26, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Maureen, You are a genius. Or should I say sometimes a genius. Lol. AK
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, 08:00 Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting discussion.
This was a response I gave to the SO-AC Chairs following David's initial request in May. It was based on consultation with people who are far more knowledgeable about the topic than myself. And Alan has pointed out, that it might aid the current discussion.
Hi All,
Given that I had not been heavily involved in the CCWG Accountability or the IRP activities, I took the opportunity to consult with the past ALAC Chairs, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crépin-Leblond and Alan Greenberg.
I agree with Keith that the current IOT is likely to be fully occupied but more importantly is not constituted to represent the AC/SOs which are Bylaw-mandated to select the Standing Panel. Although David said that the AC/SOs “helped populate” the current IOT, we could find no actual record of whether any of the IOT members were formally endorsed by any AC or SO. Certainly the ALAC did not do so.
Moreover, as I recall, there was pushback at the time that the IOT was reconstituted in that the selection was done by the Board itself (or a delegated committee).
Lastly, based on the Statements of Interest of the IOT members, it is heavily skewed in favour of particular constituencies which again makes it a poor choice for selecting a judicial panel when its own constituencies may be participants in future IRPs.
I believe that the only choice is that a new group be constituted to address the various steps called for in the Bylaws. It should be populated with formally appointed representatives from the AC/SOs that wish to participate so that they can act on behalf of the AC/SOs in compliance with the Bylaws.
To ensure coverage but still have a lean group. I would suggest that each AC/SO have no more than 2 seats on this group. Those appointed to the group must have a strong understanding of the IRP and the role of the standing panel, but cannot be expected to have the skills or contacts to populate the panel. The group must be supported by an external recruitment organization that can provide the needed skill in identifying and recruiting potential qualified judicial experts who are interested in acquiring the requisite technical knowledge for the panel.
There will also be a need to periodically fill vacancies on the panel and repopulate based on the five-year terms. The Bylaws are silent on how this will be done, but I suggest that this not be a focus of the current group but that their experience in populating the initial Standing Panel be factored in when specifying the ongoing repopulation procedure. That being said, consideration of the terms of all panelists expiring simultaneously should be given to ensure always having a functioning and skilled panel.
Maureen .
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 8:29 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Justine, I think we agree on most of the issues. However there is a bit of a mix up. Yes the evaluation panel does not need to be lawyers, but they must understand the profession. That is what I mean in my previous email. I was referring to the standing committee and the required experience for the committee. I also agree it does not have to be NOMCOM but the evaluation panel requires better diversity than the current IRP-IOT. I think we can now have a proposal back to David Olive.
Thanks AK
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:21 AM Justine Chew < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
AK.
I am now a bit confused with your latest reply. I don't think anyone is arguing against the desirability for diversity. But as you pointed out:
*if you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it.*
And I agree with you! That's what I was saying before and I will say it again:
To facilitate the best peer review for establishing an IRP panel, we need experienced arbitrators/counsels who understand what it takes to do the job. The job is not a generalized one and I don't think NomCom necessarily has what it takes because NomCom isn't mandated to have lawyers, let alone experienced arbitrators/counsels, make up its full membership.
Participation in the IRP-IOT on the other hand is predicated on one having professional litigation/arbitration/mediation experience, folks who practise as litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and thus understand the job involved. So unlike NomCom, we know that the IRP-IOT is constituted only with litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and that's why -- between a limited choice of NomCom and the IRP-IOT -- I think the IRP-IOT is a better fit than NomCom.
As to the 'lack of diversity' in the IRP-IOT membership, well that's subject to whichever litigators, arbitrators, mediators who responded to the open call for members.
Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of expanding the choice of bodies, one with diversity -- I don't know if there is an appetite for yet another body -- but for now, NomCom simply isn't a good option.
Justine ------
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 21:13, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
HI, But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to gauge that based on diversity. For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it That why I think the key skills required is diversity and understanding Thanks
AK
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche < h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level of skill and experience in such panels.
Holly
On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree.
Justine ------
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
> Hi > Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must > not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my > anyone in iCAnn. > However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to > the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. > The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but > it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one > person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the > applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some > applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should > be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to > what to expect and do.. > Thanks. > > > > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, < > justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: > >> See: >> https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp... >> >> - SOIs of members are found in a sub-page >> >> >> On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group >> to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a >> specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- >> think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to >> recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members >> who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we >> would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest. >> >> Justine >> ------ >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < >> oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task >>> but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) >>> of IRP-IOT. >>> I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. >>> Maybe Greg can also help with that. >>> If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it >>> if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a >>> team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on >>> the applications received. >>> Thanks >>> >>> AK >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard < >>> maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I >>>> forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how >>>> ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel. >>>> >>>> Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being >>>> recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. >>>> Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge >>>> of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current >>>> IRP-IOT. >>>> >>>> Maureen >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming >>>> this representative group. Understanding the level of work already >>>> underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way >>>> forward might be to leverage an existing community group. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent >>>> Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment >>>> of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to >>>> preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN >>>> shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory >>>> Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the >>>> Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the >>>> SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing >>>> panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as >>>> part of the four-step process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs >>>> [secure-web.cisco.com] >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as >>>> to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary >>>> and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There >>>> is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort >>>> of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and >>>> ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the >>>> Standing Panel established. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *In looking at the groups that are already active, >>>> one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of >>>> the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised >>>> of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, >>>> international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have >>>> the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on >>>> this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could >>>> quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this >>>> work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, >>>> separate representative group to do this work.* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the >>>> community to identify and get this representative group up and >>>> running so that the panel selection process can move forward – >>>> including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the >>>> community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the >>>> submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires >>>> on 31 July. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let us know how we can help you move this work along. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> David A. Olive >>>> Senior Vice President >>>> >>>> Policy Development Support >>>> >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ALAC mailing list >>>> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>> >>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>> ALAC Working Wiki: >>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing >>>> of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>> >>> >>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin >>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal >>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal >>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> ALAC Working Wiki: >>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >> >> > Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin > <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal > <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal > <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> > > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
HI, I total agree with Justine. Thanks On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:58 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Right. David Olive said,
*"We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work. From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July."*
I did raise a concern/perception of conflict of interest on the part of IRP-IOT members, but still think NomCom isn't the suitable body to establish the panel, so let's stick with "*forming a new, separate representative group to do this work*" then.
All good.
Justine ------
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 17:26, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Maureen, You are a genius. Or should I say sometimes a genius. Lol. AK
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, 08:00 Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting discussion.
This was a response I gave to the SO-AC Chairs following David's initial request in May. It was based on consultation with people who are far more knowledgeable about the topic than myself. And Alan has pointed out, that it might aid the current discussion.
Hi All,
Given that I had not been heavily involved in the CCWG Accountability or the IRP activities, I took the opportunity to consult with the past ALAC Chairs, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crépin-Leblond and Alan Greenberg.
I agree with Keith that the current IOT is likely to be fully occupied but more importantly is not constituted to represent the AC/SOs which are Bylaw-mandated to select the Standing Panel. Although David said that the AC/SOs “helped populate” the current IOT, we could find no actual record of whether any of the IOT members were formally endorsed by any AC or SO. Certainly the ALAC did not do so.
Moreover, as I recall, there was pushback at the time that the IOT was reconstituted in that the selection was done by the Board itself (or a delegated committee).
Lastly, based on the Statements of Interest of the IOT members, it is heavily skewed in favour of particular constituencies which again makes it a poor choice for selecting a judicial panel when its own constituencies may be participants in future IRPs.
I believe that the only choice is that a new group be constituted to address the various steps called for in the Bylaws. It should be populated with formally appointed representatives from the AC/SOs that wish to participate so that they can act on behalf of the AC/SOs in compliance with the Bylaws.
To ensure coverage but still have a lean group. I would suggest that each AC/SO have no more than 2 seats on this group. Those appointed to the group must have a strong understanding of the IRP and the role of the standing panel, but cannot be expected to have the skills or contacts to populate the panel. The group must be supported by an external recruitment organization that can provide the needed skill in identifying and recruiting potential qualified judicial experts who are interested in acquiring the requisite technical knowledge for the panel.
There will also be a need to periodically fill vacancies on the panel and repopulate based on the five-year terms. The Bylaws are silent on how this will be done, but I suggest that this not be a focus of the current group but that their experience in populating the initial Standing Panel be factored in when specifying the ongoing repopulation procedure. That being said, consideration of the terms of all panelists expiring simultaneously should be given to ensure always having a functioning and skilled panel.
Maureen .
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 8:29 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Hi Justine, I think we agree on most of the issues. However there is a bit of a mix up. Yes the evaluation panel does not need to be lawyers, but they must understand the profession. That is what I mean in my previous email. I was referring to the standing committee and the required experience for the committee. I also agree it does not have to be NOMCOM but the evaluation panel requires better diversity than the current IRP-IOT. I think we can now have a proposal back to David Olive.
Thanks AK
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:21 AM Justine Chew < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
AK.
I am now a bit confused with your latest reply. I don't think anyone is arguing against the desirability for diversity. But as you pointed out:
*if you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it.*
And I agree with you! That's what I was saying before and I will say it again:
To facilitate the best peer review for establishing an IRP panel, we need experienced arbitrators/counsels who understand what it takes to do the job. The job is not a generalized one and I don't think NomCom necessarily has what it takes because NomCom isn't mandated to have lawyers, let alone experienced arbitrators/counsels, make up its full membership.
Participation in the IRP-IOT on the other hand is predicated on one having professional litigation/arbitration/mediation experience, folks who practise as litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and thus understand the job involved. So unlike NomCom, we know that the IRP-IOT is constituted only with litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and that's why -- between a limited choice of NomCom and the IRP-IOT -- I think the IRP-IOT is a better fit than NomCom.
As to the 'lack of diversity' in the IRP-IOT membership, well that's subject to whichever litigators, arbitrators, mediators who responded to the open call for members.
Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of expanding the choice of bodies, one with diversity -- I don't know if there is an appetite for yet another body -- but for now, NomCom simply isn't a good option.
Justine ------
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 21:13, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
HI, But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to gauge that based on diversity. For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it That why I think the key skills required is diversity and understanding Thanks
AK
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche < h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
> I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly > hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level > of skill and experience in such panels. > > Holly > > On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew < > justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because > its members are not expected to have the requisite professional > qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a > standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree. > > Justine > ------ > > > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < > oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: > >> Hi >> Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must >> not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my >> anyone in iCAnn. >> However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to >> the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. >> The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but >> it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one >> person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the >> applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some >> applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should >> be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to >> what to expect and do.. >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, < >> justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> See: >>> https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp... >>> >>> - SOIs of members are found in a sub-page >>> >>> >>> On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group >>> to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a >>> specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- >>> think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to >>> recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members >>> who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we >>> would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest. >>> >>> Justine >>> ------ >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < >>> oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task >>>> but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) >>>> of IRP-IOT. >>>> I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. >>>> Maybe Greg can also help with that. >>>> If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support >>>> it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or >>>> maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the >>>> candidate depending on the applications received. >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> AK >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard < >>>> maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I >>>>> forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how >>>>> ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel. >>>>> >>>>> Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being >>>>> recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. >>>>> Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge >>>>> of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current >>>>> IRP-IOT. >>>>> >>>>> Maureen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming >>>>> this representative group. Understanding the level of work already >>>>> underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way >>>>> forward might be to leverage an existing community group. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent >>>>> Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment >>>>> of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to >>>>> preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN >>>>> shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory >>>>> Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the >>>>> Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the >>>>> SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed >>>>> standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for >>>>> approval as part of the four-step process. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs >>>>> [secure-web.cisco.com] >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as >>>>> to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary >>>>> and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com] >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There >>>>> is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort >>>>> of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and >>>>> ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the >>>>> Standing Panel established. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *In looking at the groups that are already active, >>>>> one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of >>>>> the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised >>>>> of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, >>>>> international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have >>>>> the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on >>>>> this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could >>>>> quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this >>>>> work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, >>>>> separate representative group to do this work.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the >>>>> community to identify and get this representative group up and >>>>> running so that the panel selection process can move forward – >>>>> including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the >>>>> community work – in time to start work when the deadline for >>>>> the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing >>>>> Panel expires on 31 July. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let us know how we can help you move this work along. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David A. Olive >>>>> Senior Vice President >>>>> >>>>> Policy Development Support >>>>> >>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ALAC mailing list >>>>> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>>> >>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>>> ALAC Working Wiki: >>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing >>>>> of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>> >>>> >>>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin >>>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal >>>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal >>>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ALAC mailing list >>>> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>> >>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>> ALAC Working Wiki: >>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing >>>> of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>> >>> >> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin >> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal >> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal >> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> >> >> _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of > your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list > accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( > https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the > Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, > including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling > delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > > Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
-- Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
+1 Justina.Alberto Obtener Outlook para iOS On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 8:55 AM -0300, "ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE" <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: HI, I total agree with Justine.Thanks On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:58 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: Right. David Olive said, "We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work. From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July." I did raise a concern/perception of conflict of interest on the part of IRP-IOT members, but still think NomCom isn't the suitable body to establish the panel, so let's stick with "forming a new, separate representative group to do this work" then. All good. Justine------ On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 17:26, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: Hi Maureen,You are a genius.Or should I say sometimes a genius. Lol.AK On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, 08:00 Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Interesting discussion. This was a response I gave to the SO-AC Chairs following David's initial request in May. It was based on consultation with people who are far more knowledgeable about the topic than myself. And Alan has pointed out, that it might aid the current discussion. Hi All, Given that I had not been heavily involved in the CCWG Accountability or the IRP activities, I took the opportunity to consult with the past ALAC Chairs, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crépin-Leblond and Alan Greenberg. I agree with Keith that the current IOT is likely to be fully occupied but more importantly is not constituted to represent the AC/SOs which are Bylaw-mandated to select the Standing Panel. Although David said that the AC/SOs “helped populate” the current IOT, we could find no actual record of whether any of the IOT members were formally endorsed by any AC or SO. Certainly the ALAC did not do so. Moreover, as I recall, there was pushback at the time that the IOT was reconstituted in that the selection was done by the Board itself (or a delegated committee). Lastly, based on the Statements of Interest of the IOT members, it is heavily skewed in favour of particular constituencies which again makes it a poor choice for selecting a judicial panel when its own constituencies may be participants in future IRPs. I believe that the only choice is that a new group be constituted to address the various steps called for in the Bylaws. It should be populated with formally appointed representatives from the AC/SOs that wish to participate so that they can act on behalf of the AC/SOs in compliance with the Bylaws. To ensure coverage but still have a lean group. I would suggest that each AC/SO have no more than 2 seats on this group. Those appointed to the group must have a strong understanding of the IRP and the role of the standing panel, but cannot be expected to have the skills or contacts to populate the panel. The group must be supported by an external recruitment organization that can provide the needed skill in identifying and recruiting potential qualified judicial experts who are interested in acquiring the requisite technical knowledge for the panel. There will also be a need to periodically fill vacancies on the panel and repopulate based on the five-year terms. The Bylaws are silent on how this will be done, but I suggest that this not be a focus of the current group but that their experience in populating the initial Standing Panel be factored in when specifying the ongoing repopulation procedure. That being said, consideration of the terms of all panelists expiring simultaneously should be given to ensure always having a functioning and skilled panel. Maureen. On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 8:29 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: Hi Justine, I think we agree on most of the issues. However there is a bit of a mix up. Yes the evaluation panel does not need to be lawyers, but they must understand the profession. That is what I mean in my previous email. I was referring to the standing committee and the required experience for the committee. I also agree it does not have to be NOMCOM but the evaluation panel requires better diversity than the current IRP-IOT.I think we can now have a proposal back to David Olive. Thanks AK On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:21 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: AK. I am now a bit confused with your latest reply. I don't think anyone is arguing against the desirability for diversity. But as you pointed out: if you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it. And I agree with you! That's what I was saying before and I will say it again: To facilitate the best peer review for establishing an IRP panel, we need experienced arbitrators/counsels who understand what it takes to do the job. The job is not a generalized one and I don't think NomCom necessarily has what it takes because NomCom isn't mandated to have lawyers, let alone experienced arbitrators/counsels, make up its full membership. Participation in the IRP-IOT on the other hand is predicated on one having professional litigation/arbitration/mediation experience, folks who practise as litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and thus understand the job involved. So unlike NomCom, we know that the IRP-IOT is constituted only with litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and that's why -- between a limited choice of NomCom and the IRP-IOT -- I think the IRP-IOT is a better fit than NomCom. As to the 'lack of diversity' in the IRP-IOT membership, well that's subject to whichever litigators, arbitrators, mediators who responded to the open call for members. Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of expanding the choice of bodies, one with diversity -- I don't know if there is an appetite for yet another body -- but for now, NomCom simply isn't a good option. Justine ------ On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 21:13, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: HI,But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to gauge that based on diversity.For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it That why I think the key skills required is diversity and understandingThanks AK On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level of skill and experience in such panels. Holly On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree. Justine ------ On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: Hi Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things.The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do..Thanks. On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp... SOIs of members are found in a sub-page On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest. Justine------ On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: Hi All, Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that.If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. Thanks AK On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Dear all In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel. Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT. Maureen Dear SO/AC Chairs : I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group. As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process. We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com] as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com]. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established. In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT. We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work. From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July. Let us know how we can help you move this work along. Best regards, David Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal
+1 Justine Best, Matthias _________________________ Ing. Mag. Matthias M. Hudobnik matthias@hudobnik.at http://www.hudobnik.at
On 20.07.2020, at 12:59, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Right. David Olive said,
"We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work.
From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July."
I did raise a concern/perception of conflict of interest on the part of IRP-IOT members, but still think NomCom isn't the suitable body to establish the panel, so let's stick with "forming a new, separate representative group to do this work" then.
All good.
Justine ------
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 17:26, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: Hi Maureen, You are a genius. Or should I say sometimes a genius. Lol. AK
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, 08:00 Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Interesting discussion.
This was a response I gave to the SO-AC Chairs following David's initial request in May. It was based on consultation with people who are far more knowledgeable about the topic than myself. And Alan has pointed out, that it might aid the current discussion.
Hi All,
Given that I had not been heavily involved in the CCWG Accountability or the IRP activities, I took the opportunity to consult with the past ALAC Chairs, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crépin-Leblond and Alan Greenberg.
I agree with Keith that the current IOT is likely to be fully occupied but more importantly is not constituted to represent the AC/SOs which are Bylaw-mandated to select the Standing Panel. Although David said that the AC/SOs “helped populate” the current IOT, we could find no actual record of whether any of the IOT members were formally endorsed by any AC or SO. Certainly the ALAC did not do so.
Moreover, as I recall, there was pushback at the time that the IOT was reconstituted in that the selection was done by the Board itself (or a delegated committee).
Lastly, based on the Statements of Interest of the IOT members, it is heavily skewed in favour of particular constituencies which again makes it a poor choice for selecting a judicial panel when its own constituencies may be participants in future IRPs.
I believe that the only choice is that a new group be constituted to address the various steps called for in the Bylaws. It should be populated with formally appointed representatives from the AC/SOs that wish to participate so that they can act on behalf of the AC/SOs in compliance with the Bylaws.
To ensure coverage but still have a lean group. I would suggest that each AC/SO have no more than 2 seats on this group. Those appointed to the group must have a strong understanding of the IRP and the role of the standing panel, but cannot be expected to have the skills or contacts to populate the panel. The group must be supported by an external recruitment organization that can provide the needed skill in identifying and recruiting potential qualified judicial experts who are interested in acquiring the requisite technical knowledge for the panel.
There will also be a need to periodically fill vacancies on the panel and repopulate based on the five-year terms. The Bylaws are silent on how this will be done, but I suggest that this not be a focus of the current group but that their experience in populating the initial Standing Panel be factored in when specifying the ongoing repopulation procedure. That being said, consideration of the terms of all panelists expiring simultaneously should be given to ensure always having a functioning and skilled panel.
Maureen .
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 8:29 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: Hi Justine, I think we agree on most of the issues. However there is a bit of a mix up. Yes the evaluation panel does not need to be lawyers, but they must understand the profession. That is what I mean in my previous email. I was referring to the standing committee and the required experience for the committee. I also agree it does not have to be NOMCOM but the evaluation panel requires better diversity than the current IRP-IOT. I think we can now have a proposal back to David Olive.
Thanks AK
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:21 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: AK.
I am now a bit confused with your latest reply. I don't think anyone is arguing against the desirability for diversity. But as you pointed out:
if you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it.
And I agree with you! That's what I was saying before and I will say it again:
To facilitate the best peer review for establishing an IRP panel, we need experienced arbitrators/counsels who understand what it takes to do the job. The job is not a generalized one and I don't think NomCom necessarily has what it takes because NomCom isn't mandated to have lawyers, let alone experienced arbitrators/counsels, make up its full membership.
Participation in the IRP-IOT on the other hand is predicated on one having professional litigation/arbitration/mediation experience, folks who practise as litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and thus understand the job involved. So unlike NomCom, we know that the IRP-IOT is constituted only with litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and that's why -- between a limited choice of NomCom and the IRP-IOT -- I think the IRP-IOT is a better fit than NomCom.
As to the 'lack of diversity' in the IRP-IOT membership, well that's subject to whichever litigators, arbitrators, mediators who responded to the open call for members.
Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of expanding the choice of bodies, one with diversity -- I don't know if there is an appetite for yet another body -- but for now, NomCom simply isn't a good option.
Justine ------
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 21:13, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: HI, But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to gauge that based on diversity. For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it That why I think the key skills required is diversity and understanding Thanks
AK
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: > I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level of skill and experience in such panels. > > Holly > >> On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree. >> >> Justine >> ------ >> >> >>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: >>> Hi >>> Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. >>> However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. >>> The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do.. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp... >>>> SOIs of members are found in a sub-page >>>> >>>> On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest. >>>> >>>> Justine >>>> ------ >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. >>>>> I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that. >>>>> If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> AK >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel. >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maureen >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear SO/AC Chairs : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com] as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com]. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let us know how we can help you move this work along. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> David A. Olive >>>>>> Senior Vice President >>>>>> >>>>>> Policy Development Support >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ALAC mailing list >>>>>> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>>>> >>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>>>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>>> >>>>> Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ALAC mailing list >>>>> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>>> >>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>> >>> Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >
Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal
Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Agreed with Maureen points and I also believe should not be selected by NOMCOM now though with the new implementations suggested by NOMCOM review and implementation group Nomcom will be more clearly capable to select good persons for any position. Kisses to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> Date: Monday, July 20, 2020 at 07:59 To: ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org>, 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel Right. David Olive said, "We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work. From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July." I did raise a concern/perception of conflict of interest on the part of IRP-IOT members, but still think NomCom isn't the suitable body to establish the panel, so let's stick with "forming a new, separate representative group to do this work" then. All good. Justine ------ On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 17:26, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng<mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng>> wrote: Hi Maureen, You are a genius. Or should I say sometimes a genius. Lol. AK On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, 08:00 Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Interesting discussion. This was a response I gave to the SO-AC Chairs following David's initial request in May. It was based on consultation with people who are far more knowledgeable about the topic than myself. And Alan has pointed out, that it might aid the current discussion. Hi All, Given that I had not been heavily involved in the CCWG Accountability or the IRP activities, I took the opportunity to consult with the past ALAC Chairs, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier Crépin-Leblond and Alan Greenberg. I agree with Keith that the current IOT is likely to be fully occupied but more importantly is not constituted to represent the AC/SOs which are Bylaw-mandated to select the Standing Panel. Although David said that the AC/SOs “helped populate” the current IOT, we could find no actual record of whether any of the IOT members were formally endorsed by any AC or SO. Certainly the ALAC did not do so. Moreover, as I recall, there was pushback at the time that the IOT was reconstituted in that the selection was done by the Board itself (or a delegated committee). Lastly, based on the Statements of Interest of the IOT members, it is heavily skewed in favour of particular constituencies which again makes it a poor choice for selecting a judicial panel when its own constituencies may be participants in future IRPs. I believe that the only choice is that a new group be constituted to address the various steps called for in the Bylaws. It should be populated with formally appointed representatives from the AC/SOs that wish to participate so that they can act on behalf of the AC/SOs in compliance with the Bylaws. To ensure coverage but still have a lean group. I would suggest that each AC/SO have no more than 2 seats on this group. Those appointed to the group must have a strong understanding of the IRP and the role of the standing panel, but cannot be expected to have the skills or contacts to populate the panel. The group must be supported by an external recruitment organization that can provide the needed skill in identifying and recruiting potential qualified judicial experts who are interested in acquiring the requisite technical knowledge for the panel. There will also be a need to periodically fill vacancies on the panel and repopulate based on the five-year terms. The Bylaws are silent on how this will be done, but I suggest that this not be a focus of the current group but that their experience in populating the initial Standing Panel be factored in when specifying the ongoing repopulation procedure. That being said, consideration of the terms of all panelists expiring simultaneously should be given to ensure always having a functioning and skilled panel. Maureen . On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 8:29 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng<mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng>> wrote: Hi Justine, I think we agree on most of the issues. However there is a bit of a mix up. Yes the evaluation panel does not need to be lawyers, but they must understand the profession. That is what I mean in my previous email. I was referring to the standing committee and the required experience for the committee. I also agree it does not have to be NOMCOM but the evaluation panel requires better diversity than the current IRP-IOT. I think we can now have a proposal back to David Olive. Thanks AK On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:21 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> wrote: AK. I am now a bit confused with your latest reply. I don't think anyone is arguing against the desirability for diversity. But as you pointed out: if you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it. And I agree with you! That's what I was saying before and I will say it again: To facilitate the best peer review for establishing an IRP panel, we need experienced arbitrators/counsels who understand what it takes to do the job. The job is not a generalized one and I don't think NomCom necessarily has what it takes because NomCom isn't mandated to have lawyers, let alone experienced arbitrators/counsels, make up its full membership. Participation in the IRP-IOT on the other hand is predicated on one having professional litigation/arbitration/mediation experience, folks who practise as litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and thus understand the job involved. So unlike NomCom, we know that the IRP-IOT is constituted only with litigators, arbitrators, mediators, and that's why -- between a limited choice of NomCom and the IRP-IOT -- I think the IRP-IOT is a better fit than NomCom. As to the 'lack of diversity' in the IRP-IOT membership, well that's subject to whichever litigators, arbitrators, mediators who responded to the open call for members. Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of expanding the choice of bodies, one with diversity -- I don't know if there is an appetite for yet another body -- but for now, NomCom simply isn't a good option. Justine ------ On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 21:13, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng<mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng>> wrote: HI, But I think the experience is there with NOMCOM. They have been doing it year in year out for all aspect of ICANN. In terms of skills, the skills would be in the diversity fo the group because they would need to pick people not based on what they have done in ICANN but in their professional life as a Lawyer or a Judge and you need to understand how to gauge that based on diversity. For example, It takes someone from the UK to understand what it takes to be a Queen's Counsel (QC) likewise You need to be from West Africa (English speaker) to understand what it takes to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Another example is the jury system, I don't understand it cos we don't use it but someone from the US would understand it. If you look at the skills required for this role, one has to be a lawyer with significant experience or some with significant experience in arbitration to be able to meet up with the criteria. for anyone to judge those criteria tehy need to understand it That why I think the key skills required is diversity and understanding Thanks AK On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:38 AM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: I have to agree with Justine on this issue. While one would clearly hope for diversity in membership, the bottom line has to be a minimum level of skill and experience in such panels. Holly On Jul 18, 2020, at 11:16 PM, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> wrote: I have less faith in NomCom being the right body simply because its members are not expected to have the requisite professional qualifications and experience to undertake the task of establishing a standing panel for the IRP. So we may just have to agree to disagree. Justine ------ On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 17:41, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng<mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng>> wrote: Hi Thank you Justine. Yes it's like a judicial committee and they must not be affiliated to any group in ICANN therefore they would not be know my anyone in iCAnn. However, the legal system or hierarchy varries from one country to the other and it required a diverse team to be able to dissect things. The current composition of IRP-IOT to me is not diverse enough but it's not too bad. It has 18 members and from my initial glance it has one person from Africa and one from Latin America. I do not know where the applications would come from but it requires diversity to appriciaiate some applications. Therefore I would suggest that a more diverse group should be set up I still think NOMCOM can do it if they are properly guided as to what to expect and do.. Thanks. On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 09:56 Justine Chew, <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> wrote: See: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp... · SOIs of members are found in a sub-page On the one hand, I am not confident that NomCom is the right group to undertake selection because IRP panellists are required to have a specific skill-set which we cannot expect NomCom members to appreciate -- think of it like a judicial selection committee which is tasked to recommend appointment of judges. On the other hand, the IRP-IOT has members who have acted or are acting as advocates for aggrieved parties, so we would need to consider any perceptions of conflict of interest. Justine ------ On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 16:43, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng<mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng>> wrote: Hi All, Yes, it might be a good idea for IRP-IOT to carry out this task but I think we need to see the full current composition (list of members) of IRP-IOT. I have tried looking for the membership online ut can't find it. Maybe Greg can also help with that. If the current IRP-IOT team is diverse enough, I would support it if not my suggestion would be to have a diverse team (new team or maybe a team like the NOMCOM) to do the job of selecting the candidate depending on the applications received. Thanks AK On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:20 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all In May, David sent the following request to SO-AC Chairs which I forwarded to this ALAC group seeking some opinion and/or advice on how ICANN might best proceed with establishing this standing panel. Greg currently represents the ALAC on the IRP-IOT which is being recommended as one group that could be additionally assigned this role. Perhaps Greg could comment and make a recommendation based on his knowledge of the requirements of this new panel and what is being done on the current IRP-IOT. Maureen Dear SO/AC Chairs : I am reaching out to see how we can best help you with forming this representative group. Understanding the level of work already underway in the community, we are suggesting that one way forward might be to leverage an existing community group. As you may know, one of the features of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP) under the new Bylaws is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute. The Bylaws specify that “ICANN shall, in consultation with the Supporting Organizations [SOs] and Advisory Committees [ACs], initiate a four-step process to establish the Standing Panel…” (Bylaws, Art. 4, Sec. 4.3(j).) Notably, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on a single proposed standing panel slate to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval as part of the four-step process. We’ve received feedback from many SOs and ACs [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__secure-2Dweb.cisco.com_...>. There is strong support for the SOs and ACs to further their selection effort of the Standing Panel through a small representative group, and ICANN org sees this as an important component to getting the Standing Panel established. In looking at the groups that are already active, one potential way to proceed is to leverage the existence of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT). The IRP-IOT, which you helped repopulate, is already comprised of people that are well qualified in issues relating to ICANN, international arbitration and dispute resolution and who are likely to have the skill sets that would be needed to lead the community work on this important endeavor. If this is a potential way forward, we could quickly work with you to explore how to appropriately do this work along with the other work underway in the IRP-IOT. We are also ready to support the community in forming a new, separate representative group to do this work. From the ICANN org side, we’re available to support the community to identify and get this representative group up and running so that the panel selection process can move forward – including identification of an expert to further support and coordinate the community work – in time to start work when the deadline for the submission of expressions interest to serve on the Standing Panel expires on 31 July. Let us know how we can help you move this work along. Best regards, David Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> Website<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Website<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
participants (7)
-
ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE -
Alberto soto -
Holly Raiche -
Justine Chew -
Matthias M. Hudobnik -
Maureen Hilyard -
Vanda Scartezini