Re: [soac-mapo] Draft recommendation on using a DRSP
I agree with Chuck that it is more accurately described as "expert advice to the board" rather than a "dispute resolution process" and so the former is better terminology to use for this recommendation. Thanks, Robin On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: 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.ChuckFrom: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evan LeibovitchSent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 3:18 PM To: Philip Sheppard Cc: soac-mapo Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Draft recommendation on using a DRSPOn 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 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|