[CCWG-ACCT] Declaration issued in the Booking.com v ICANN IRP
Dr Eberhard Lisse
el at lisse.NA
Wed Mar 4 07:18:39 UTC 2015
Chris,
this is an amazingly good idea :-)-O
As long as the case is closed.
el
On 2015-03-04 08:07, Chris Disspain wrote:
> Greg,
>
> I think both you and Philip raise interesting points. A useful
> exercise for the CCWG may be to examine the booking.com
> <http://booking.com> -v- ICANN IPR and consider what recourse
> mechanisms the CCWG believes should have been available to any of
> the relevant parties and at what times during the process. This
> may help clarify the difference between (and community desire for)
> recourse mechanisms that test policy decisions, decisions of
> independent panels, decisions of the Board and so on.
>
> And, as a separate question, in respect to your comments below
> about mechanisms that go directly to the merits of a decision,
> what decision would that apply to in this case?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris Disspain
[...]
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list