[Area 1] Regarding review and redress

[Kavouss Arasteh]

I do not understand the binding nature for outcome of Review Mechanism
The issue should be discussed  by  Redress Mechanism and if the proposed
course of action was totally or partly agreed will be implkemented
Once again these two mechanisms are complementary to each other and thus
ARE NOT ALTERNATIVE TO EACH OTHER
Kavouss

2015-01-15 17:32 GMT+01:00 Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>:

> Thanks for that, Bruce. And so, a review can lead to a redress, but does
> not necessarily do so.
> If a review concludes a „a wrong or grievance” (Bruce’s wording) and the
> advice is binding, redress will follow. If it does not conclude that,
> there will be no redress. If the advice is a recommendation, redress might
> follow. Or not.
>
> So, @Mathieu re the preliminary draft: I would not consider a review
> mechanism to be an example of a redress mechanism. A mechanism whereby the
> outcome of (a) review(s) are worked into binding measures, is.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roelof
>
>
>
>
> On 15-01-15 09:18, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Hello Robin,
> >
> >
> >>>  1.  I think some of the mechanisms that are labeled "redress" are
> >>>actually "review".  See the definitions below, but basically, since
> >>>mechanisms like ReconRequest and IRP and the Ombudsman are only making
> >>>recommendations to the board to change its mind on a decision, and have
> >>>no authority to set aside a decision on their own, they more
> >>>appropriately categorized as "review" mechanisms (and not redress).
> >
> >
> >Although in terms of an end-to-end process, once the Board approves a
> >recommendation from mechanisms like ReconRequest and IRP and the
> >Ombudsman it is possible to provide redress where a review has found that
> >a decision has violated the bylaws etc. and where the review has
> >recommended that ICANN provide redress.   In general when one of the
> >existing accountability mechanisms finds fault in a decision by the
> >Board, the Board would be seeking to provide some form of redress to the
> >complainant.
> >
> >This is separate of course from the discussion about whether the outcome
> >of an independent review is binding.
> >
> >Just wanted to note that the existing process "can" provide redress, just
> >that currently the Board still does have discretion to approve or not
> >approve any specific recommendation for redress.   If the Ombudsman
> >recommended that as a result of a bad decision that the Board provide a
> >payment of a Billion dollars to the complaint as a redress mechanism then
> >that may be rejected, but if the redress was to allow an applicant to
> >proceed to the next stage of say a new gTLD evaluation process - then I
> >would expect the Board to provide such redress.
> >
> >I am using "redress" to mean a remedy or compensation for a wrong or
> >grievance.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bruce Tonkin
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
> >Ccwg-accountability1 at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability1/attachments/20150115/bea6390c/attachment.html>