[CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Wed Jan 20 13:06:59 UTC 2016
+ 1 Avri and Greg and agree this needs to be addressed before we close
the discussion on the IRP.
On 20/01/2016 05:35, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Avri,
>
> I agree with your analysis and share your concern. The PTI IRP is
> fundamentally not a Bylaws issue (or more accurately -- fundamentally
> not a "violation of the Bylaws" issue).
>
> Having "borrowed" the IRP in an attempt to fill the requirements of
> the CWG, we can't then pretend that the requirements of the CWG are
> coterminous with the general design of the IRP. The CWG's
> requirements will require a specific statement of the basis on which a
> claim may be brought -- and it is a different basis than for other IRP
> claims. This doesn't have to be long, but it does have to be right.
>
> Conversely, if we are truly wedded to the idea that the IRP is a
> "bylaws court" and nothing more, then it can't be used to satisfy the
> CWG's requirement and we will need to do something else. Personally, I
> don't endorse this position (though it does raise some concern about
> the ability of the panel to deal with PTI failures, if it is designed
> to be a bylaws court. That said, I have sufficient faith in the skill
> of experienced arbitrators to be able to resolve a variety of disputes.)
>
> Since this a requirement for the transition, we need to resolve this
> crisply, explicitly and appropriately.
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am uncomfortable with closing the discussion of the new
> principles for
> the IRP. Since we decided not to create a new entity to serve the
> requirements of the CWG but rather to make it a function of the
> IRP, we
> need to make sure that the basis for the IRP is fit for purpose before
> starting on its implementation.
>
> The CWG calls for:
>
> > 1. *Appeal mechanism*. An appeal mechanism, for
> example in
> > the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the
> > IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated
> > issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the
> > CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal
> > mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and
> > re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD
> > community post-transition.
> >
>
> I do not see how to define this function in terms of By Laws alone
> as By
> Laws have little to say about negotiated SLAs and the customers'
> or CSC
> complaints. Perhaps it can be done by changes to some of the By Laws,
> but I do not see us as having scoped out what those changes need
> to be.
>
> So until such time as we have dealt the the policy issues of
> filling the
> CWG's requirements, I would like to register a personal caution, and
> thus an objection, to closing the discussion of the basis and standing
> for IRP appeals. I do not believe this is merely an implementation
> issue. At least not yet.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160120/ea754e77/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list