Skip to main content

Independent Review Process Standing Panel – Call to Action

As we work collectively to complete the full implementation of the updated Independent Review Process (IRP), ICANN organization seeks community inputs on the process for the selection of a standing panel to hear IRPs. There are still open questions on how ICANN’s Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) will coordinate their participation in the standing panel selection process. We welcome all inputs to a discussion forum that has been opened on the ICANN Community Wiki at

The IRP is an accountability mechanism provided by the ICANN Bylaws that allows for third-party review of actions (or inactions) by the ICANN Board or staff that are allegedly in violation of the Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. The IRP was updated through the work of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, to make the IRP more transparent, efficient, and accessible, and designed to produce consistent and coherent results that will serve as a guide for future actions. One feature of the updated IRP is the establishment of a standing panel from which panelists shall be selected to preside over each IRP dispute as initiated. The ICANN Bylaws specify that ICANN shall, in consultation with the SOs and ACs establish the Standing Panel. (See Bylaws, Art. 4, Sections 4.3(j) and (k).)  As part of the process, the SOs and ACs must collectively agree on one slate of candidates for the standing panel to be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval.

While there was some initial cross-community consultation to coordinate how the standing panel could be established, we must make further progress in order to complete the seating of a standing panel. Some of the work to date includes ICANN org facilitation of meetings with SO/AC leaders in 2018, development a process roadmap for the establishment of the standing panel, and creation a document of pending issues to be decided by the SOs and ACs. The documentation reflecting the cross-community work to date is available on the Community Wiki site at:

As a way to move this process along, ICANN org has published a series of questions designed to help resolve the pending issues. The questions are:

  • Qualifications for Standing Panelists: Are there specific qualifications that should be included? If so, what are they? Anything disqualifying? Should the SOs and ACs recommend qualifications? And if so, how?  
  • Identifying a Slate of Well-Qualified Panelists: We’ve heard concerns from some members of the ICANN community as to whether the broader community has the appropriate experience and skill for this selection work, and have suggested the possibility that ICANN instead contract with experts to perform this vetting process. Should the community rely on expertise to help vet and recommend a final slate for the standing panel?
  • Board Approval of Panel Slate – Further Questions: After there is a slate of well-qualified applicants, the Board must confirm the panel. If the Board has questions that might impact its confirmation, to whom should those questions be addressed? If experts are used to develop the slate, should the experts, the SOs and ACs, or some combination thereof be part of that conversation?
  • Future Selections: Should the process being designed today be reviewed for effectiveness after the first slating is completed, prior to making it standard operating procedure for future selection rounds?

We have put more detail to these questions here, and would appreciate your input be sent to the public email list: While we will monitor the responses as they come in, we encourage interested commenters to provide initial inputs by 15 April 2019. Once we have reviewed the comments submitted, we will follow up with another communication on next steps.


    Volker Greimann  00:26 UTC on 12 March 2019

    It would be helpful if ICANN would not hide public comment requests in their blog posts. It has a page to announce and collect public comments and this should be used for all public comments. The community cannot monitor all possible communication channels used by ICANN to ensure no requests for comment are missed. If you want to reach out for comments, do so in a transparent and above all consistent manner.

    Paul McGrady  19:15 UTC on 19 March 2019

    I really must agree with Volker. It seems inapposite for a call for comments on one of the most important accountability measures to be tucked away in a blog post. This really should appear in the "Open" section of the Public Comments drop down menu from the ICANN home page. This topic deserves the full attention of the Community.

    Donna Austin  14:58 UTC on 25 March 2019

    I agree with Volker and Paul.

Domain Name System
Internationalized Domain Name ,IDN,"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet ""a-z"". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European ""0-9"". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed ""ASCII characters"" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of ""Unicode characters"" that provides the basis for IDNs. The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen ""-"". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of ""labels"" (separated by ""dots""). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an ""A-label"". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a ""U-label"". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for ""test"" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of ""ASCII compatible encoding"" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an ""LDH label"". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as"""" is not an IDN."