That's a very interesting idea. I feel like the structure of appeals
is probably the trickiest conceptual aspect of improving the DIDP, so
good to consider alternatives. I think in part it would depend on the
level of demand for information that ICANN gets, and how often appeals
go forward. It's also important to bear in mind that, whoever is
deciding these things, they need to have access to absolutely
everything ICANN has, and a high level of familiarity with the inner
workings of ICANN, so that they could determine, for example, whether
particular information would compromise the integrity of ICANN's
deliberative and decision-making process in line with the second
defined condition for nondisclosure.

This is in addition to the qualities Karel mentions (robust, cost
effective, timely appeals) - which I also fully agree with.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 10/6/2015 1:02 PM, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
>> This sort of brings us back to a fundamental challenge with reforming ICANN's
>> access to information system, which is the need for some sort of analogous independent branch (I'm not completely certain the Ombudsman fits the bill).
> On this point, I'm not sure how far we dare go here, but would it be
> unreasonable to set up an arb panel comparable to the ones private ones
> used for the UDRP (only, of course, appointed by a cross-stakeholder
> nomination committee and with strict independence criteria) for
> evaluating such things?
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>