RE: [soac-mapo] Draft recommendation on using a DRSP

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Evan,

 

It seems to me that the way that the dispute process in AGv4 is currently 
designed would result in providing expert advice to the Board.  Calling it 
dispute resolution makes it sound like a mediation process but I don’t think 
that would be accurate in terms of my understanding of the proposed process.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 3:18 PM
To: Philip Sheppard
Cc: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Draft recommendation on using a DRSP

 

 

On 8 September 2010 10:22, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

As requested:

Draft recommendation ###

 

There should be a DRSP charged with making a recommendation on an objection.

The DRSP should be appointed by the Board.

As in all other areas of ICANN policy the Board will ultimately decide whether 
to adopt or reject the recommendation of the DRSP.



Just a nit but... if the purpose of this recommendation is to provide 
third-party expert advice to the Board, why are we still referring to it as a 
DSRP?

Such a group is being asked to provide guidance on the legitimacy of 
objections, not mediate/resolve between applicant and objectors. Or is it? 
Let's be clear on the intent.

Also, this group may or may not be a paid group of experts; the reference to 
"service provider" still connotes the kind of outsourcing that formed a large 
part of my objection to the original process.

- Evan

 

         

         

        Philip