<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">One consideration would be in certain situations the appellant may not have the funds to progress to an IRP.<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"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jacob Malthouse<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:55 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Bruce Tonkin<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding ICANN's adherence to "international law"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Bruce, wouldn't someone just go all the way to IRP anyway even if there was a new gTLD appeal? No one's going to voluntarily stop at appeal #1 if appeal #2 is still on the table. Best, J. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jacob Malthouse<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">778-960-6527<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.bigroom.ca/" target="_blank">http://www.bigroom.ca/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 17 March 2015 at 15:26, Bruce Tonkin <<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Greg,<br>
<br>
<br>
>> The idea that gTLD panel decisions should be unappealable might have seemed reasonable in the abstract. In practice, it has turned out to enshrine and insulate inconsistent and poorly reasoned decisions. This may not be the right forum for revisiting
that decision, as opposed to New gTLD Program review processes. Furthermore, this may not be an issue that involves reviewing Board decisions, so again, this may not be the right place (or at least, the right email thread) to bring this up. <br>
<br>
>> However, there's still a legitimate issue raised by the "unappealability" of certain decisions, which does need to be revisited in whatever the right place and time is.<br>
<br>
Yes the lack of an appeal process within the new gTLD program has basically shifted the focus to the Board. I.e. parties unhappy with an independent panel decision have escalated it to a Board panel (reconsideration process). The reconsideration process
did not include reviewing an independent panel decision on its merits (the Board doesn't actually have the subject matter expertise to review most panel decisions on their merits) – but instead involves reviewing that the panel followed the dispute process
properly. Then IRP is then used to appeal the Board reconsideration decision. The root cause in these cases is the lack of an ability to appeal an independent panel decision within the new gTLD program on its merits.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>