<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Kavouss, all -</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</div>
<div>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
<font color="#ff0000">reconsideration process</font> in general that I do think is highly relevant to our work.</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Becky</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">J. Beckwith Burr<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><b><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(6, 134, 88);">Neustar, Inc. /</span></b><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> Deputy
General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(6, 134, 88);">Office</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">: + 1.202.533.2932 <span style="color: rgb(6, 134, 88); "> Mobile</span>:
+1.202.352.6367 <span style="color: rgb(6, 134, 88); ">/ <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" style="color: purple; ">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> / www.neustar.biz</span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday, March 6, 2015 at 2:40 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>Accountability Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>, Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Declaration issued in the Booking.com v ICANN IRP<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear All,</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>Writting tio ICANN with specific refernce to <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__booking.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=D_912tXO-MKrGOBwNWBcPPMTGWTe2ycEbV7H1b0k-PU&s=ZKOx_HGKc9gI014WI_e-652LMzse0LXhXCQOA8zKW-8&e=">
booking.com</a> string .hotel is outside of our mandate as it is an issue for ICANN to resolve no doubt in consultaion with GAC.</div>
<div>Let us concenrate of the principles and not specific string, gTLD .</div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>Kavouss r</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-03-06 8:11 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Alice,<br>
<br>
this is what I have been saying, for quite a while now.<br>
<br>
We are not happy with the Board (as an example),<br>
<br>
so, we add another review mechanism, with which we are not happy,<br>
<br>
so, we need another redress mechanism.<br>
<br>
Guess what? we might need arbitration in case we are not happy with the<br>
redress...<br>
<br>
<br>
I remain convinced that (to speak in my profession's language) that<br>
we are treating the symptoms instead of making a proper diagnosis<br>
and treat the underlying cause.<br>
<br>
greetings, el<br>
<span><br>
<br>
<br>
On 2015-03-06 08:44, Alice Munyua wrote:<br>
> Dear Colleagues,<br>
><br>
> As you may be aware, the African Union Commission endorsed<br>
> application for the new gTLD (dot Africa) has been the subject of<br>
> a series of applications for review by another applicant including<br>
> the IRP initiated in October 2013.<br>
><br>
> Article 4 Section 3 of the Bylaws, which state (amongst others)<br>
> that:<br>
><br>
</span>> * “The IRP Panel should strive to issue its written<br>
<span>> declaration no later than six months after the filing of the<br>
> request for independent review.<br>
</span>> * In order to keep the costs and burdens of independent review<br>
<span>> as low as possible, the IRP Panel should conduct its proceedings<br>
> by email and otherwise via the Internet to the maximum extent<br>
> feasible. Where necessary, the IRP Panel may hold meetings by<br>
> telephone. In the unlikely event that a telephonic or in-person<br>
> hearing is convened, the hearing shall be limited to argument<br>
> only<br>
</span>> *<br>
<div>
<div class="h5">><br>
><br>
> The IR Panel has so far<br>
><br>
> o Applied interim protections stopping ICANN from progressing any<br>
> application for dot Africa until the Panel has concluded its work;<br>
><br>
> o Determined that a formal hearing, including calling of<br>
> witnesses, should occur;<br>
><br>
> o Decided to convene an in person hearing including<br>
> cross-examination of witnesses, which has not taken place yet due<br>
> to the withdrawal of a panel member.<br>
><br>
> o Not set a time for completion, despite the By Laws requiring a<br>
> Panel to strive to issue its written declaration no later than six<br>
> months after the filing of a Request (Article IV, s.3)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Our observation is that this important accountability (IRP)<br>
> process in its current form is dysfunctional and does not seem to<br>
> benefit any of the affected parties.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> While we focus on strengthening review and redress mechanisms for<br>
> example by making them more accessible (through lower costs and<br>
> easier “standing” to make a complaint) and applicable to a<br>
> wider range of Board decisions, etc, we would also like to<br>
> provisions put in place to ensure that there is redress against<br>
> the dispute resolution provider in the event that the process goes<br>
> off-track.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> There are several possible inputs to the enhancing ICANN<br>
> accountability process that draw on the dot Africa experience to<br>
> date.<br>
><br>
> o Community Empowerment (WP1)<br>
><br>
> § Community empowerment with regard to ICANN functions needs to<br>
> be exercised responsibly: If there are checks and balances on<br>
> ICANN, what checks and balances apply to different sections of the<br>
> ICANN community?<br>
><br>
> § Process issues need to be considered from the viewpoint of<br>
> those who are simply trying to conduct legitimate business with<br>
> ICANN.<br>
><br>
> § There is a need to avoid legitimate public policy, commercial<br>
> and technical objectives, for example from new gTLD applicants in<br>
> underserved regions, being frustrated by lengthy procedural delays<br>
> through no fault of those trying to achieve them<br>
><br>
> o Review and Redress (WP2)<br>
><br>
> § Grounds for review, especially at the IRP stage, should be<br>
> clearly specified.<br>
><br>
> § All review processes should have some form of time limit for<br>
> each stage, but allowing for some flexibility in specified<br>
> circumstances.<br>
><br>
> § Any proposal for ICANN to be bound by an arbitration process<br>
> needs to be considered carefully and subject to rigorous<br>
> appraisal.<br>
><br>
> § Redress against the dispute resolution provider in the event<br>
> that the process goes off-track.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> o Stress Testing (or Contingencies)<br>
><br>
> § These should include the risk of gridlocking ICANN<br>
> decision-making through use of cascading review mechanisms.<br>
><br>
> § Any of the parties exploited ICANN’s hands-off approach to<br>
> the detriment of other stakeholders and affected parties. Any<br>
> accountability process should in turn have its own accountability<br>
> fail-safes.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Best regards<br>
> Alice Munyua<br>
> African Union Commission (AUC)<br>
><br>
</div>
</div>
[...]<br>
--<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb">Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)<br>
<a href="mailto:el@lisse.NA">el@lisse.NA</a> / * | Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733" value="+264811246733">
+264 81 124 6733</a> (cell)<br>
PO Box 8421 \ /<br>
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/<br>
</span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=D_912tXO-MKrGOBwNWBcPPMTGWTe2ycEbV7H1b0k-PU&s=uKJiJ6NX8Hi80EI_rj1I29Uaij9VAuQOMZTApwddR2s&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>