<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Mathieu,</div><div>Further to my previous message, I wish to make some comments to your covering message</div><div>For ease of refernce, I have copied your message below and comment on that pargraph by paragraph as follows:</div><div><span lang="EN-US"><u><br></u></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><u><br></u></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><u>General Comments from Kavouss </u></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><u>Dear Mathieu , dear all,</u></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><u>There is conceptual problem in this other message referring to the two terms "Review Mechanism "and "Redress Mechanism"..The legal difficulties and 8or problem is that you have tzaken these two Mechanism as alternative to each other where as they are complementary in the consecutive order i.e. the </u><u>"Review Mechanism " is a prerequisite mechamism based on its outcome ( suhggestions, recommendatioons,conclusions ) the "Redress Mechanism" would be unsed to redress those elements which have been identified by the Review Process.</u></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><u>If an enterprise, an organisation, or a company decides to verfy whther the course of action taken complies with the terms and conditions ( charter ,convention, charter, constitution, covenant ....) based on which that enterprise, organisation, or company is/ was established .It would first <strong>review </strong> the process and based on the outcome of the review the shortcoming, inconsistencies, defficiencies ,problems are identified ,Then through the </u><strong>redress </strong><u>process those </u><u>shortcoming, inconsistencies, defficiencies ,problems are corrected .</u></span></div><div><em><br></em></div><div><em><br></em></div><div><em>Dear Colleagues,<br><br> I support the relevance and importance of the distinction. A description of this distinction is included in the "problem definition" document currently open for your comments and contributions, sections 3b (review) and 3c (redress). <br><br> Maybe this discussion could be used to check whether the current wording is agreeable to everyone ? <br><br></em></div><blockquote type="cite"><p style="margin-left:72pt"><em><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">b.<span style="line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:7pt;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">Review mechanisms<u></u><u></u></span></u></em></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><em>The group considers review mechanisms to be mechanisms that assess the performance and relevance of processes or structures, and provide recommendations (binding or not binding) for improvement. <u></u><u></u></em></span></p><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><em>Examples include: </em></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Comments from Kavouss </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">1.The outcome from the review mechanism is never binding due to the legal connotation of the Term " Review" . Review is review has always had optional character and never has been binding </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></div><p><em><span lang="EN-US">-<span style="line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:7pt;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">Periodic structural reviews of SOs and ACs (as currently mandated in the ICANN Bylaws)<u></u><u></u></span></em></p><p><em><span lang="EN-US">-<span style="line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:7pt;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">AoC-mandated ICANN organizational reviews for Accountability and Transparency; Security, Stability, and Resiliency; WHOIS; and Competition and Consumer Trust.<u></u><u></u></span></em></p><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US">Comments from Kavouss </span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US">2. You have referred to </span><em> </em><span lang="EN-US"><em>Periodic structural reviews of SOs and ACs (as currently mandated in the ICANN Bylaws.</em>But this is valid in regard with present structure which is based on terms and conditions of AoC Bylaws, Article of corporation where as the future structure may be totally different</span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span></div><p style="margin-left:72pt"><em><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">c.<span style="line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:7pt;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">Redress mechanisms<u></u><u></u></span></u></em></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><em>The group defines redress mechanisms as mechanisms that focus on assessing the compliance or relevance of a certain decision, and can conclude to its confirmation, cancellation or amendment. The output of such mechanism shall be binding. <u></u><u></u></em></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><em>Examples include: <u></u><u></u></em></span></p><p><em><span lang="EN-US">-<span style="line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:7pt;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">Independent Review (if it is considered to be binding)<u></u><u></u></span></em></p><div><em><span lang="EN-US">-<span style="line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:7pt;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">State of California or jurisdictions where ICANN has a presence Court décisions</span></em></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>Comments from Kavouss </u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>With respect to the first indent ,as I explained Under general comments redressing process has always been mandatory and binding since without that how the </u><u>inconsistencies, defficiencies ,problems are identified Under the review process are redressed if the process was not mandatory / binding .</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>In view of the above, there is a need to clarify the matter.</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>I guess people are thinking of Review process similar to ATRT process which is totally optional in the implementation . That does not work .If you take that path there would be no accountability at all.</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>Moreover, As I have already indicated you need to make a clear distinction between the Policy, Policy making and Policy implementing entities and processes.</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>I do not uinderstand why we always by passed that important process .</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>I have made such suggestions several times but the two ch chairs have ignored that to be included in the agenda</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>The question is are we make evry possible effrort to maintain the existing process which is not acutally accountable to any one but on certain cases is accountable to NTIA or</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>We need to establish the separation of process and responsibilty through an appropriate mechanism having two steps" Review "and the "Redress " the former is essential to be done periodically while the outcome once considered under the latter process" Redress " is mandatory .</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>Then we need to describe</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>Who is the Policy making entity</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>Who is the Policy implementing entity</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>And what are the terms . conditions, provisions and content of Policy .</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>Thes should be clarified.</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>Regards</u></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US"><u>Kavouss </u> </span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US"><u><br></u></span></div></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-09 14:17 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Dear Mathieu</div><div>Dear All,</div><div>I have several comments and one major problem in misconception and misunderstanding propagated by the author of these issues which has led and would further lead to a total misleading of the two terms " Review" and " redress" </div><div>I will revert to you later</div><div>Kavouss <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><div class="h5"><div><br>On 9 Jan 2015, at 10:10, Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
I support the relevance and importance of the distinction. A
description of this distinction is included in the "problem
definition" document currently open for your comments and
contributions, sections 3b (review) and 3c (redress). <br>
<br>
Maybe this discussion could be used to check whether the current
wording is agreeable to everyone ? <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p style="margin-left:72pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt"><span>b.<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">Review
mechanisms<u></u><u></u></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The group
considers review mechanisms to be mechanisms that assess the
performance and
relevance of processes or structures, and provide
recommendations (binding or
not binding) for improvement. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Examples
include: <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><span>-<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">Periodic
structural reviews of SOs and ACs (as currently mandated in
the ICANN Bylaws)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><span>-<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">AoC-mandated
ICANN organizational reviews for Accountability and
Transparency; Security,
Stability, and Resiliency; WHOIS; and Competition and Consumer
Trust.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:72pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt"><span>c.<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:12pt">Redress
mechanisms<u></u><u></u></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The group
defines redress mechanisms as mechanisms that focus on
assessing the compliance
or relevance of a certain decision, and can conclude to its
confirmation,
cancellation or amendment. The output of such mechanism shall
be binding. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Examples
include: <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><span>-<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">Independent
Review (if it is considered to be binding)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><span>-<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">State
of California or jurisdictions where ICANN has a presence
Court decisions<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
May I also seize the opportunity to remind you all that your edits
and suggestions are welcome on the rest of the document as well ? <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<div>Le 08/01/2015 22:44, Bruce Tonkin a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hello Paul,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre> . For me, the difference between "review" (i.e. recommendations) and "judicial/arbitral function" (i.e. binding decision that mandates implementation) is key.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre>Agreed. That is an important distinction.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" target="_blank" value="+33139308306">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</div></blockquote></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><20140105 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - strawman -coChairs.pdf></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><20140105 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - strawman -prefinal.docx></div></blockquote><span><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div>