At the 11 March 2010 Public Forum in Nairobi, Kenya (http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/nairobi2010/transcript-public-forum-11mar10-en.txt), a recurring question arose from Edward Hasbrouck regarding ICANN's Independent Review Process. ICANN's General Counsel, John Jeffrey, reported that staff would prepare a Q&A responsive to Mr. Hasbrouck's recurring question, so that the community could review and provide comment.
The full text of Mr. Hasbrouck's statement at the Public Form can be accessed at: https://icann.wufoo.com/reports/icann-37-irp-decision/.
Question 1: Has ICANN followed its internal procedures to approve an independent review provider?
Answer 1: Yes. The ICANN Board designated the International Centre for Dispute Resolution as the Independent Review Provider at its 19 April 2004 meeting. The resolutions of that meeting are located at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-19apr04.htm.
Question 2: Was a policy development process required for ICANN to designate the ICDR as the Independent Review Provider?
Answer 2: No. The framework for the Independent Review accountability mechanism was achieved through policy work through 2002, arising out of the evolution reform efforts. Since 2002, ICANN has not undertaken any policy actions nor adopted any policies pursuant to Article III, Section 6 of ICANN's Bylaws to govern the Independent Review Process or the designation of the Independent Review Panel Provider. More information can be located in and access additional links found at the following pages of ICANN's website regarding ICANN's historical work in this area:
Question 3: Are there procedures in place for initiating an Independent Review?
Answer 3: Yes. Independent Reviews must be initiated in accord with the procedures outlined at http://www.icann.org/en/general/accountability_review.html. The form for initiating an Independent Review is located at http://www.adr.org/si.asp?id=4588. The Independent Review process is conducted under the ICDR's International Arbitration rules and procedures, located at http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=33994, as augmented and supplemented by the Supplementary Procedures for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Independent Review Process, located at http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=32197 .
Question 4: How many Requests for Independent Review have been initiated in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws?
Answer 4: One request for Independent Review has been initiated in ICANN's history. That request was brought by ICM Registry in June 2008. Documents related to the ICM Registry Independent Review are located at http://www.icann.org/en/irp/.
Question 5: What is the status of the Mr. Hasbrouck's requests for Independent Review, as well as the other outstanding requests he references in his statement?
Answer 5: No person or entity other than ICM Registry has ever initiated a Request for Independent Review pursuant to the required rules and procedures. Mr. Hasbrouck has, since 2005, been asserting that he initiated an Independent Review. Also since 2005, ICANN's General Counsel has been offering to assist Mr. Hasbrouck in clarifying the process for initiating an Independent Review. For example, on
4 December 2005, John Jeffrey sent Mr. Hasbrouck an email providing information then available regarding ICANN procedures for Independent Review. On 29 November 2006, ICANN's General Counsel's Office sent another letter inviting Mr. Hasbrouck to participate in a conference call with ICANN and the ICDR to assist in clarifying what steps are required to initiate an Independent Review. That invitation was not accepted.
Much of this discussion is set forth in Mr. Hasbrouck's blog, at http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001007.html#procedures. Because of the recurring nature of Mr. Hasbrouck's inquiries, including submissions to the March 2009 Mexico City “Question Box”, the ICANN Public Forum at the 2006 Wellington meeting, as well as a request under ICANN's Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, General Counsel offered to provide these Questions and Answers to provide a standing link regarding these Independent Review-related questions.