Next Steps in Assisting Community Work — Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel
Dear Colleagues, What is your opinion on the selection process for the IRP Standing Panel (see questions below)? The issue is important for ccTLDs because, although the disputes exclude “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims that ICANN, the Board, individual Directors, Officers or Staff members have not enforced ICANN's contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract” or “Claims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions that are not resolved through mediation”. Some time ago we submitted a statement (see attachment). Currently, there are no ccTLD people on the IRP Implementation Oversight team (IRP-IOT). If I remember correctly, when we issued a call for volunteers to help repopulate IRP-IOT, there was no interest to participate in this work. Please let me know your thoughts! Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org> Date: Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 18:00 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com>, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>, Fred Baker <fred@isc.org>, "manal@tra.gov.eg" <manal@tra.gov.eg>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, Rod Rasmussen <rod@rodrasmussen.com>, "oscar@lacnic.net" <oscar@lacnic.net> Cc: Elizabeth Le <elizabeth.le@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: Next Steps in Assisting Community Work — Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel 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 as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps. 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)
Seems to me that if there’s already a group of SO/AC reps familiar with all of these issues via the IRP-IOT then that seems logical to use that group rather than convene a totally new one. But that work predates my time on council or within ICANN policy work and so I am probably one of the least expert voices around the table! From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 5:58 PM To: ccNSO-Council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Next Steps in Assisting Community Work — Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel Dear Colleagues, What is your opinion on the selection process for the IRP Standing Panel (see questions below)? The issue is important for ccTLDs because, although the disputes exclude “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims that ICANN, the Board, individual Directors, Officers or Staff members have not enforced ICANN's contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract” or “Claims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions that are not resolved through mediation”. Some time ago we submitted a statement (see attachment). Currently, there are no ccTLD people on the IRP Implementation Oversight team (IRP-IOT). If I remember correctly, when we issued a call for volunteers to help repopulate IRP-IOT, there was no interest to participate in this work. Please let me know your thoughts! Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 18:00 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com<mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>>, Fred Baker <fred@isc.org<mailto:fred@isc.org>>, "manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>" <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Rod Rasmussen <rod@rodrasmussen.com<mailto:rod@rodrasmussen.com>>, "oscar@lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>" <oscar@lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>> Cc: Elizabeth Le <elizabeth.le@icann.org<mailto:elizabeth.le@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Next Steps in Assisting Community Work — Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel 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<https://community.icann.org/display/ESPFIRP/Relevant+Documents?preview=/9509...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps<https://community.icann.org/display/ESPFIRP/Relevant+Documents?preview=/9509...>. 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)
Thank you Nick for your comments and thanks a lot to Giovanni for volunteering to join IOT on our behalf! No one of us is an expert on these issues – the GRC has attempted to look into this several times but either got carried away by other things or the process simply have never had reached the point of enough clarity for us to work on any related ccNSO guideline. Personally, I am struggling to remember anything we discussed and had to look at the Bylaws and all the documents in a feeble attempt to recall what it’s all about. So, we’re all in the same boat and now need to decide what’s the best way of rowing. I agree with Nick – it seems logical to use IPR-IOT since they are already there anyway and, most probably, already know everything one needs to know to start working on the selection of the Standing Panel. However, one might argue that when people joined the group they were asked, as the name suggests, to oversee the implementation, i.e. the mission of the group according to their wiki page is “The IOT will review the outcome produced by our legal counsel and report back to the CCWG-Accountability.” I would say that overseeing and reporting back is not the same as reviewing applications and selecting the best candidates to the SP. I tried to find their charter or something similar but did not succeed. Here’s the link to their wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp... If the scope of their work did not include selection of panellists, then: The scope needs to be re-defined, Current members should be given the opportunity to leave (not that they would not be able to do it any time) because the workload and time commitment might increase significantly, New members (with a new job description) should be invited. With that in mind… we can go for a whole new group altogether. I really do not know what would be more rational. Thanks, ]{atrina From: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> Date: Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 00:45 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, "ccNSO-Council@icann.org" <ccNSO-Council@icann.org> Subject: RE: Next Steps in Assisting Community Work — Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel Seems to me that if there’s already a group of SO/AC reps familiar with all of these issues via the IRP-IOT then that seems logical to use that group rather than convene a totally new one. But that work predates my time on council or within ICANN policy work and so I am probably one of the least expert voices around the table! From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 5:58 PM To: ccNSO-Council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Next Steps in Assisting Community Work — Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel Dear Colleagues, What is your opinion on the selection process for the IRP Standing Panel (see questions below)? The issue is important for ccTLDs because, although the disputes exclude “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims that ICANN, the Board, individual Directors, Officers or Staff members have not enforced ICANN's contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract” or “Claims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions that are not resolved through mediation”. Some time ago we submitted a statement (see attachment). Currently, there are no ccTLD people on the IRP Implementation Oversight team (IRP-IOT). If I remember correctly, when we issued a call for volunteers to help repopulate IRP-IOT, there was no interest to participate in this work. Please let me know your thoughts! Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org> Date: Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 18:00 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com>, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>, Fred Baker <fred@isc.org>, "manal@tra.gov.eg" <manal@tra.gov.eg>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, Rod Rasmussen <rod@rodrasmussen.com>, "oscar@lacnic.net" <oscar@lacnic.net> Cc: Elizabeth Le <elizabeth.le@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: Next Steps in Assisting Community Work — Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel 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 as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps. 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 Since the people most interested are probably on the IOT, why not re-form that group with a mandate to do this, invite any other people to participate? Some of those on it already might want to be candidates for the Panel (if that is allowed - can't remember that level of detail sorry), and so they would have to resign. J On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 22:41, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Thank you Nick for your comments and thanks a lot to Giovanni for volunteering to join IOT on our behalf!
No one of us is an expert on these issues – the GRC has attempted to look into this several times but either got carried away by other things or the process simply have never had reached the point of enough clarity for us to work on any related ccNSO guideline. Personally, I am struggling to remember anything we discussed and had to look at the Bylaws and all the documents in a feeble attempt to recall what it’s all about. So, we’re all in the same boat and now need to decide what’s the best way of rowing.
I agree with Nick – it seems logical to use IPR-IOT since they are already there anyway and, most probably, already know everything one needs to know to start working on the selection of the Standing Panel. However, one might argue that when people joined the group they were asked, as the name suggests, to oversee the implementation, i.e. the mission of the group according to their wiki page is “The IOT will review the outcome produced by our legal counsel and report back to the CCWG-Accountability.” I would say that overseeing and reporting back is not the same as reviewing applications and selecting the best candidates to the SP.
I tried to find their charter or something similar but did not succeed. Here’s the link to their wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/IRPIOTI/Independent+Review+Process+-+Imp...
If the scope of their work did not include selection of panellists, then:
1. The scope needs to be re-defined, 2. Current members should be given the opportunity to leave (not that they would not be able to do it any time) because the workload and time commitment might increase significantly, 3. New members (with a new job description) should be invited.
With that in mind… we can go for a whole new group altogether. I really do not know what would be more rational.
Thanks,
]{atrina
*From: *Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> *Date: *Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 00:45 *To: *Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, "ccNSO-Council@icann.org" < ccNSO-Council@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: Next Steps in Assisting Community Work — Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel
Seems to me that if there’s already a group of SO/AC reps familiar with all of these issues via the IRP-IOT then that seems logical to use that group rather than convene a totally new one.
But that work predates my time on council or within ICANN policy work and so I am probably one of the least expert voices around the table!
*From:* Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Katrina Sataki *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2020 5:58 PM *To:* ccNSO-Council@icann.org *Subject:* [ccnso-council] Next Steps in Assisting Community Work — Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel
Dear Colleagues,
What is your opinion on the selection process for the IRP Standing Panel (see questions below)?
The issue is important for ccTLDs because, although the disputes exclude “Claims relating to ccTLD delegations and re-delegations”, they cover, e.g. “[disputes that] arose from claims involving rights of the EC as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws”, “Claims that ICANN, the Board, individual Directors, Officers or Staff members have not enforced ICANN's contractual rights with respect to the IANA Naming Function Contract” or “Claims regarding PTI service complaints by direct customers of the IANA naming functions that are not resolved through mediation”. Some time ago we submitted a statement (see attachment).
Currently, there are no ccTLD people on the IRP Implementation Oversight team (IRP-IOT). If I remember correctly, when we issued a call for volunteers to help repopulate IRP-IOT, there was no interest to participate in this work.
Please let me know your thoughts! Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
*From: *David Olive <david.olive@icann.org> *Date: *Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 18:00 *To: *Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, "Drazek, Keith" < kdrazek@verisign.com>, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>, Fred Baker <fred@isc.org>, "manal@tra.gov.eg" <manal@tra.gov.eg>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>, Rod Rasmussen <rod@rodrasmussen.com>, "oscar@lacnic.net" <oscar@lacnic.net> *Cc: *Elizabeth Le <elizabeth.le@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> *Subject: *Next Steps in Assisting Community Work — Selection Process for Bylaws IRP Standing Panel
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 <https://community.icann.org/display/ESPFIRP/Relevant+Documents?preview=/9509...> as to how they envision this work getting done, and published a summary and next steps <https://community.icann.org/display/ESPFIRP/Relevant+Documents?preview=/9509...>. 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)
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ 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.
-- *Jordan Carter* Group Chief Executive *InternetNZ | Ipurangi Aotearoa* Helping New Zealanders harness the power of the Internet www.internetnz.nz *M* +64 21 442 649 *O* +64 4 555 0123 [image: InternetNZ]
participants (3)
-
Jordan Carter -
Katrina Sataki -
Nick Wenban-Smith