[CCWG-ACCT] [Party2] Independent Review

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Bruce,
The case addresses and touches some among many short coming in the ICANN
accountability such as the status of the IRP ( binding, Non binding,
Comparative study or what ?
These are the imoportant issues to be really examined analized and acted
uopon.
Regards
Kavouss

2015-03-08 7:55 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>:

> Hello Alice,
>
>
> We appreciate that IRP proceedings are published.
> >>  What we have found lacking is timely regular communication from ICANN
> staff and availability of a predictable schedule, which brings us back to
> the issue of clear timelines for each stage.
>
> Yes - that is a good point.   I will see what we can do in that area.
>  The IRP is run independently of ICANN - but we can at least be asking the
> question, and posting the answers we receive.
>
> As you have already pointed out we need to be able to hold the providers
> of such dispute services accountable as well.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150308/e7397e81/attachment.html>