3,197
edits
Changes
no edit summary
* The ''Cooperative Engagement Process'' (CEP) is an optional, preliminary, non-binding process "to resolve and/or narrow the Dispute." Parties to a CEP may request an ''IRP Mediator'' to facilitate meetings under the CEP. The IRP Mediator is ineligible for appointment to the IRP Panel regarding the Dispute.
* The ''Cooperative Engagement Process'' (CEP) is an optional, preliminary, non-binding process "to resolve and/or narrow the Dispute." Parties to a CEP may request an ''IRP Mediator'' to facilitate meetings under the CEP. The IRP Mediator is ineligible for appointment to the IRP Panel regarding the Dispute.
* The ''IRP Panel'' is a three-member panel appointed to preside over and make findings and decisions regarding a Dispute.
* The ''IRP Panel'' is a three-member panel appointed to preside over and make findings and decisions regarding a Dispute.
* 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]].<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>
==ICM Registry LLC Request for IRP==
==Efforts to Create a Standing Panel==
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>
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>.
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
==Previous and Current IRPs==
===ICM Registry LLC Request for IRP===
On June 6, 2008, ICM Registry LLC, a company based in Florida which was established to apply and serve as the [[.xxx]] [[sTLD|sponsored top level domain name]] (sTLD) manager filed a request for independent review of Board actions after the ICANN Board rejected its application in March, 2007. The company claimed that ICANN's decision to reject ICM's application were "arbitrary, lacking in transparency and discriminatory," a clear violation of the organization's Bylaws. The complaint was filed by ICM to the International Centre for Dispute Resolution ([[ICDR]]) whereby the company asked the IRP to invalidate ICANN's decision. In addition, ICM also requested the IRP to declare that the company fulfilled all the requirements set by the RFP, direct ICANN to immediately execute a Registry agreement between ICANN and ICM and require ICANN to pay all the expenses incurred by the company in conjunction with its .xxx application including legal fees.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/icm-irp-request-06jun08.pdf ICM Registry LLC v. ICANN]</ref>
On June 6, 2008, ICM Registry LLC, a company based in Florida which was established to apply and serve as the [[.xxx]] [[sTLD|sponsored top level domain name]] (sTLD) manager filed a request for independent review of Board actions after the ICANN Board rejected its application in March, 2007. The company claimed that ICANN's decision to reject ICM's application were "arbitrary, lacking in transparency and discriminatory," a clear violation of the organization's Bylaws. The complaint was filed by ICM to the International Centre for Dispute Resolution ([[ICDR]]) whereby the company asked the IRP to invalidate ICANN's decision. In addition, ICM also requested the IRP to declare that the company fulfilled all the requirements set by the RFP, direct ICANN to immediately execute a Registry agreement between ICANN and ICM and require ICANN to pay all the expenses incurred by the company in conjunction with its .xxx application including legal fees.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/icm-irp-request-06jun08.pdf ICM Registry LLC v. ICANN]</ref>