Specific comments

["Richard Hill" <rhill@xxxxxxxxx>]

I offer the following specific comments:

Regarding article 5, Conduct, I support the language that restricts
in-person hearings.  As mentioned in my previous comment, I see the IRP as a
kind of administrative law proceeding, and, in my experience, in-person
hearings are not usually required for such proceedings, because the evidence
is normally found in written documents, and written pleadings on the legal
issues suffice to inform the arbitrators.  This is particularly the case
when, as here, the applicable law is relatively concise, consisting in our
case of the ICANN bylaws and policies.

Regarding article 6, Written Statements, I do not support page limits on
briefs.  Pursuant to the fundamental right to be heard, parties should be
free to submit briefs of whatever length they consider appropriate. (This
comment also applies to the last paragraph of article 7.)

Regarding article 14, Appeal, you may wish to consider making the grounds
for appeal more precise.  You could consider the grounds for appeal of the
UN labor-dispute process, which are:

(a) Exceeded its jurisdiction or competence;
(b) Failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it;
(c) Erred on a question of law;
(d) Committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the
case; or
(e) Erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable
decision.

The rules for the UN labor dispute appeal process cited above are at:

 http://www.un.org/en/oaj/appeals/basicdocs.shtml 
 
Alternatively, you might consider a simpler, but still precise formulation,
based on the grounds of appeal permitted by the Swiss Federal Tribunal
(supreme court) namely:

(a) error of law, including error of procedure;
(b) manifest error on a question of fact, susceptible of affecting the
outcome of the case.

You may wish to specify that, on appeal, the full Standing Panel will be
bound by the facts found by the first-instance panel, except to the extent
that the appellant can prove that there was a manifest error on a question
of fact, susceptible of affecting the outcome of the case, or to the extent
that the appellant can prove that there was an error of procedure in
establishing the facts, susceptible of affecting the outcome of the case.

Regarding article 15, Costs, I would suggest that, on appeal, the appellant
should bear the costs if it loses, otherwise it is likely that many
first-instance decisions will be appealed.  You might wish to consider
adding something like the following:

"On appeal, the full Standing Panel will normally provide for the losing
party to pay administrative costs and fees of the prevailing party, unless
the particular circumstances of the case justify a different allocation of
costs and fees."

Best,
Richard Hill