<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.im
{mso-style-name:im;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Kavouss, I agree. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>However ,have the WG seen the attached http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150307_icann_should_not_ululate_over_bookingcom_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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Personally, I am struggling to keep up. Is there a weekly summary on how we are doing on the critical path.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I ve just listened to the whole US Senate meeting and Fadi’s comments. Are we therefore assuming/ agreed that ICANN will <u>remain, continue</u> as a California public benefit non profit corporation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Sorry, if I am playing catch up and this has been concluded and these are adequately covered within the stress tests. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Phil<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Phil Buckingham<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>CEO, Dot Advice Limited <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Burr, Becky<br><b>Sent:</b> 06 March 2015 15:48<br><b>To:</b> Kavouss Arasteh; Jordan Carter<br><b>Cc:</b> accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Declaration issued in the Booking.com v ICANN IRP<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Kavouss, all -<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>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 <span style='color:red'>reconsideration process</span> in general that I do think is highly relevant to our work.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Becky<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>J. Beckwith Burr</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658'>Neustar, Inc. /</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658'>Office</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>: + 1.202.533.2932 </span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658'> Mobile</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>: +1.202.352.6367 </span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658'>/ <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz"><span style='color:purple'>becky.burr@neustar.biz</span></a> / <a href="http://www.neustar.biz">www.neustar.biz</a></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Friday, March 6, 2015 at 2:40 AM<br><b>To: </b>Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>><br><b>Cc: </b>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><b>Subject: </b>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Declaration issued in the Booking.com v ICANN IRP<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Let us concenrate of the principles and not specific string, gTLD .<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Kavouss r<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>2015-03-06 8:11 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse <<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>>:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>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><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>> * “The IRP Panel should strive to issue its written<br>> declaration no later than six months after the filing of the<br>> request for independent review.<br>> * In order to keep the costs and burdens of independent review<br>> 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>> *<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>><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>><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>[...]<br>--<br><span class=im>Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)</span><br><span class=im><a href="mailto:el@lisse.NA">el@lisse.NA</a> / * | Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733">+264 81 124 6733</a> (cell)</span><br><span class=im>PO Box 8421 \ /</span><br><span class=im>Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>_______________________________________________<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><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>