[CCWG-ACCT] Declaration issued in the Booking.com v ICANN IRP

Barrack Otieno otieno.barrack at gmail.com
Sun Mar 8 18:03:46 UTC 2015


I agree with Marilyn.

Regards

On 3/8/15, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> In my view, examining how existing accountability mechanisms are working is
> useful to the WG.
> without taking up specific cases. I think that is what Becky has proposed.
>
>
> so, the issue may be how to "take learning" from past uses of accountability
> mechanisms,
> and try to "test" those against present and future challenges, and then
> figure out improvements.
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>>
>>> Kavouss, all -
>>>
>>> I agree with Kavouss that it is not within our remit to second guess
>>> specific ongoing disputes.  (I’m not sure that anyone suggested writing
>>> to ICANN on the .hotel matter, but if so, I think that would also be
>>> outside our mandate.) That said, the declaration in the Booking.com case
>>> has a very interesting and informative discussion about the
>>> reconsideration process in general that I do think is highly relevant to
>>> our work.
>>>
>>> Becky
>>>
>>> J. Beckwith Burr
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
>>> becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>>>
>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Friday, March 6, 2015 at 2:40 AM
>>> To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>,
>>> Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Declaration issued in the Booking.com v ICANN
>>> IRP
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> With respect to the problem raised by Booking.com, it is my strong view
>>> that CCWG should not get involved in any sopecific string rather
>>> concdntrate of the  nature of the complaint .and address that as a
>>> principle  in its finding.
>>> Writting tio ICANN  with specific refernce to booking.com string .hotel
>>> is outside of our mandate as it is an issue for ICANN to resolve no doubt
>>> in consultaion with GAC.
>>> Let us concenrate of the principles and not specific string, gTLD .
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss r
>>>
>>> 2015-03-06 8:11 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na>:
>>>> Alice,
>>>>
>>>> this is what I have been saying, for quite a while now.
>>>>
>>>> We are not happy with the Board (as an example),
>>>>
>>>> so, we add another review mechanism, with which we are not happy,
>>>>
>>>> so, we need another redress mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> Guess what? we might need arbitration in case we are not happy with the
>>>> redress...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I remain convinced that (to speak in my profession's language) that
>>>> we are treating the symptoms instead of making a proper diagnosis
>>>> and treat the underlying cause.
>>>>
>>>> greetings, el
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-03-06 08:44, Alice Munyua wrote:
>>>> > Dear Colleagues,
>>>> >
>>>> > As you may be aware, the African Union Commission endorsed
>>>> > application for the new gTLD (dot Africa) has been the subject of
>>>> > a series of applications for review by another applicant including
>>>> > the IRP initiated in October 2013.
>>>> >
>>>> > Article 4 Section 3 of the Bylaws, which state (amongst others)
>>>> > that:
>>>> >
>>>> >   * “The IRP Panel should strive to issue its written
>>>> >   declaration no later than six months after the filing of the
>>>> >   request for independent review.
>>>> >   * In order to keep the costs and burdens of independent review
>>>> >   as low as possible, the IRP Panel should conduct its proceedings
>>>> >   by email and otherwise via the Internet to the maximum extent
>>>> >   feasible.  Where necessary, the IRP Panel may hold meetings by
>>>> >   telephone.  In the unlikely event that a telephonic or in-person
>>>> >   hearing is convened, the hearing shall be limited to argument
>>>> >   only
>>>> >   *
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The IR Panel has so far
>>>> >
>>>> > o Applied interim protections stopping ICANN from progressing any
>>>> > application for dot Africa until the Panel has concluded its work;
>>>> >
>>>> > o Determined that a formal hearing, including calling of
>>>> > witnesses, should occur;
>>>> >
>>>> > o Decided to convene an in person hearing including
>>>> > cross-examination of witnesses, which has not taken place yet due
>>>> > to the withdrawal of a panel member.
>>>> >
>>>> > o Not set a time for completion, despite the By Laws requiring a
>>>> > Panel to strive to issue its written declaration no later than six
>>>> > months after the filing of a Request (Article IV, s.3)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Our observation is that this important accountability (IRP)
>>>> > process in its current form is dysfunctional and does not seem to
>>>> > benefit any of the affected parties.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > While we focus on strengthening review and redress mechanisms for
>>>> > example by making them more accessible (through lower costs and
>>>> > easier “standing” to make a complaint) and applicable to a
>>>> > wider range of Board decisions, etc, we would also like to
>>>> > provisions put in place to ensure that there is redress against
>>>> > the dispute resolution provider in the event that the process goes
>>>> > off-track.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > There are several possible inputs to the enhancing ICANN
>>>> > accountability process that draw on the dot Africa experience to
>>>> > date.
>>>> >
>>>> > o Community Empowerment (WP1)
>>>> >
>>>> > § Community empowerment with regard to ICANN functions needs to
>>>> > be exercised responsibly: If there are checks and balances on
>>>> > ICANN, what checks and balances apply to different sections of the
>>>> > ICANN community?
>>>> >
>>>> > § Process issues need to be considered from the viewpoint of
>>>> > those who are simply trying to conduct legitimate business with
>>>> > ICANN.
>>>> >
>>>> > § There is a need to avoid legitimate public policy, commercial
>>>> > and technical objectives, for example from new gTLD applicants in
>>>> > underserved regions, being frustrated by lengthy procedural delays
>>>> > through no fault of those trying to achieve them
>>>> >
>>>> > o Review and Redress (WP2)
>>>> >
>>>> > § Grounds for review, especially at the IRP stage, should be
>>>> > clearly specified.
>>>> >
>>>> > § All review processes should have some form of time limit for
>>>> > each stage, but allowing for some flexibility in specified
>>>> > circumstances.
>>>> >
>>>> > § Any proposal for ICANN to be bound by an arbitration process
>>>> > needs to be considered carefully and subject to rigorous
>>>> > appraisal.
>>>> >
>>>> > § Redress against the dispute resolution provider in the event
>>>> > that the process goes off-track.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > o Stress Testing (or Contingencies)
>>>> >
>>>> > § These should include the risk of gridlocking ICANN
>>>> > decision-making through use of cascading review mechanisms.
>>>> >
>>>> > § Any of the parties exploited ICANN’s hands-off approach to
>>>> > the detriment of other stakeholders and affected parties.  Any
>>>> > accountability process should in turn have its own accountability
>>>> > fail-safes.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >  Best regards
>>>> > Alice Munyua
>>>> > African Union Commission (AUC)
>>>> >
>>>> [...]
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>>>> el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
>>>> PO Box 8421             \     /
>>>> Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>


-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254-20-2498789
Skype: barrack.otieno
http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list