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

Mon Mar 9 05:17:30 UTC 2015

Kavouss, I agree. 

However ,have the WG seen the attached
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150307_icann_should_not_ululate_over_booking
com_irp_outcome_decision/  I personally feel there will be further community
applicants seeking redress in the process. It would be good to monitor their
progress, decisions made for future reference. 

Personally, I am struggling to keep up. Is there a weekly summary on how we
are doing on the critical path.

I ve just listened  to the whole US Senate meeting and Fadi’s  comments. Are
we therefore assuming/ agreed  that ICANN will remain, continue as a
California public benefit non profit corporation.

Personally I would like to take a look at the accountability mechanisms in
place now, particularly in terms of operational readiness & compliance risk
, and see how they cope  with the introduction of  1400 new TLDs going
forward. I am particularly concerned about the level of LOCs exposure
secured against the failure of TLD Registries.

Sorry, if I am playing catch up and this has been concluded and these are
adequately covered within the stress tests. 

Regards,

Phil

Phil Buckingham

CEO, Dot Advice Limited 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr,
Becky
Sent: 06 March 2015 15:48
To: Kavouss Arasteh; Jordan Carter
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Declaration issued in the Booking.com v ICANN IRP

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  /
<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> 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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__booking.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=
MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=D_912
tXO-MKrGOBwNWBcPPMTGWTe2ycEbV7H1b0k-PU&s=ZKOx_HGKc9gI014WI_e-652LMzse0LXhXCQ
OA8zKW-8&e=>  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
<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733>  (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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l
istinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw
&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=D_912tXO-MKrGOBwNWBcPPMTGWT
e2ycEbV7H1b0k-PU&s=uKJiJ6NX8Hi80EI_rj1I29Uaij9VAuQOMZTApwddR2s&e=> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150309/483ffa69/attachment.html>