3,197
edits
Changes
→Efforts to Create a Standing Panel
* The ''IRP Provider'' is the "well-respected international dispute resolution provider" that administers proceedings under the IRP. The current IRP Provider is the [[International Centre for Dispute Resolution]] (ICDR).<ref>[https://www.icdr.org/icann ICDR.org - ICANN Programs]</ref>
* The ''IRP Provider'' is the "well-respected international dispute resolution provider" that administers proceedings under the IRP. The current IRP Provider is the [[International Centre for Dispute Resolution]] (ICDR).<ref>[https://www.icdr.org/icann ICDR.org - ICANN Programs]</ref>
==Efforts to Create a Standing Panel==
==Amendments and Evolution==
The [[First Accountability and Transparency Review]] included recommendations related to [[ICANN Accountability]] mechanisms, including the then-current IRP:
The [[First Accountability and Transparency Review]] included recommendations related to [[ICANN Accountability]] mechanisms, including the then-current IRP:
<blockquote>23. As soon as possible, but no later than June 2011, the ICANN Board should implement Recommendation 2.7 of the 2009 Draft Implementation Plan for Improving Institutional Confidence which calls on ICANN to seek input from a committee of independent experts on the restructuring of the three review mechanisms - the Independent Review Panel (IRP), the Reconsideration Process and the Office of the Ombudsman. This should be a broad, comprehensive assessment of the accountability and transparency of the three existing mechanisms and of their inter-relation, if any (i.e., whether the three processes provide for a graduated review process), determining whether reducing costs, issuing timelier decisions, and covering a wider spectrum of issues would improve Board accountability. The committee of independent experts should also look at the mechanisms in Recommendation 2.8 and Recommendation 2.9 of the Draft Implementation Plan. Upon receipt of the final report of the independent experts, the Board should take actions on the recommendations as soon as practicable.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-recommendations-31dec10-en.pdf ATRT1 - Final Recommendations], December 31, 2010 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>23. As soon as possible, but no later than June 2011, the ICANN Board should implement Recommendation 2.7 of the 2009 Draft Implementation Plan for Improving Institutional Confidence which calls on ICANN to seek input from a committee of independent experts on the restructuring of the three review mechanisms - the Independent Review Panel (IRP), the Reconsideration Process and the Office of the Ombudsman. This should be a broad, comprehensive assessment of the accountability and transparency of the three existing mechanisms and of their inter-relation, if any (i.e., whether the three processes provide for a graduated review process), determining whether reducing costs, issuing timelier decisions, and covering a wider spectrum of issues would improve Board accountability. The committee of independent experts should also look at the mechanisms in Recommendation 2.8 and Recommendation 2.9 of the Draft Implementation Plan. Upon receipt of the final report of the independent experts, the Board should take actions on the recommendations as soon as practicable.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-recommendations-31dec10-en.pdf ATRT1 - Final Recommendations], December 31, 2010 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>
In response to the recommendation, the board convened the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) to review and assess ICANN's accountability mechanisms.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-launches-accountability-structures-expert-panel-seeks-community-input-11-9-2012-en ICANN.org - ICANN Launches ASEP], September 11, 2012</ref> The panel submitted its report to the board in October 2012.<ref name="asep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-26oct12-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Report by the ASEP], October 2012 (PDF)</ref> Among the recommendations included in the report was a call for an omnibus standing panel to provide "a variety of expertise, including jurisprudence, judicial experience, alternative dispute resolution and knowledge of ICANN's mission and work" in the panelist pool for the IRP.<ref name="asep" /> The "omnibus standing panel" language was inserted into the [[ICANN Bylaws]] by amendment in April 2013.<ref name="2013art4">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2014-04-04-en#IV ICANN.org Bylaws Archive], Article 4 as amended April 11, 2013</ref>.
In response to the recommendation, the board convened the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) to review and assess ICANN's accountability mechanisms.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-launches-accountability-structures-expert-panel-seeks-community-input-11-9-2012-en ICANN.org - ICANN Launches ASEP], September 11, 2012</ref> The panel submitted its report to the board in October 2012.<ref name="asep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-26oct12-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Report by the ASEP], October 2012 (PDF)</ref> Among the recommendations included in the report was a call for an omnibus standing panel to provide "a variety of expertise, including jurisprudence, judicial experience, alternative dispute resolution and knowledge of ICANN's mission and work" in the panelist pool for the IRP. The ASEP also recommended the creation of the Cooperative Engagement Process, several procedural refinements, and adjustments to the timeline and workflow of an IRP proceeding.<ref name="asep" /> These recommendations were incorporated into the [[ICANN Bylaws]] by amendment in April 2013.<ref name="2013art4">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2014-04-04-en#IV ICANN.org Bylaws Archive], Article 4 as amended April 11, 2013</ref>. Despite its inclusion in the Bylaws, the standing panel was not formed.
As part of the [[IANA Transition]] in 2016, the Bylaws governing the IRP process were amended to implement changes proposed by the [[Cross Community Working Group on Accountability]]. The IRP Implementation Oversight Team and ICANN org initiated a process of establishing a Standing Panel for ICDR to draw from when establishing IRP Panels. The idea was
As part of the [[IANA Transition]] in 2016, the Bylaws governing the IRP were amended again to implement changes proposed by the [[Cross Community Working Group on Accountability]]. In addition to other details, the amendments established the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) to assist in implementing the changes. IRP-IOT and ICANN org initiated a process of recruiting for a Standing Panel for ICDR to draw from when establishing IRP Panels. The effort appeared to fizzle out in 2018.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/updating-irp-2018-01-11-en ICANN.org - Updating the IRP], last updated November 1, 2018</ref> The IRP-IOT was "had difficulties in achieving active participation or quorum with its current membership at regularly scheduled meetings."<ref name="recomp">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-11-03-en#1.c Resolutions of the Board] regarding IRP-IOT Recomposition, November 3, 2019</ref> An effort to re-compose the IRP-IOT and gain more traction on its goals and objectives was initiated by the board in November 2019.<ref name="recomp" /> At its meeting in October 2020, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee received an "update" on that effort, although few details are available.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bamc-2020-10-14-en ICANN.org - Minutes of BAMC Meeting], October 14, 2020</ref> The BAMC received a similar briefing in April 2021,<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bamc-2021-04-16-en ICANN.org - Minutes of BAMC Meeting], April 16, 2021</ref> and again in July 2021.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bamc-2021-07-28-en ICANN.org - Minutes of BAMC Meeting], July 28, 2021</ref> A more substantive discussion occurred at the BAMC meeting of December 8, 2021:
<blockquote>The BAMC noted that the IRP-IOT has been focusing its work over the past two years on updating the IRP Supplementary Procedures, and that much of this work has centered on the [rule defining the] time for filing an IRP. The IRP-IOT has also created subgroups to address the remaining areas of the Supplementary Procedures. The BAMC discussed the importance of moving the work on updating the Supplementary Procedures along and asked ICANN org for recommendations on how to move the work along.<refname="bamc21">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bamc-2021-12-08-en ICANN.org - Minutes of BAMC Meeting], December 8, 2021</ref></blockquote>
The BAMC also noted that the departure of [[Nigel Roberts]] had left a vacant board representative seat on the IRP-IOT. ICANN org was tasked with recommending ways to move the work on IRP Supplementary Procedures along; the BAMC Chair was also instructed to ask the chair of the Board Governance Committee to call for expressions of interest from board members to serve on the BAMC.<ref name="bamc21" />
As noted by the BAMC in December 2021, since the reconstruction of the IRP-IOT, there has to date been little effort focused on establishing a standing panel.
==Previous and Current IRPs==
==Previous and Current IRPs==