<div dir="ltr"><div>I do not understand the binding nature for outcome of Review Mechanism</div><div>The issue should be discussed by Redress Mechanism and if the proposed course of action was totally or partly agreed will be implkemented </div><div>Once again these two mechanisms are complementary to each other and thus ARE NOT ALTERNATIVE TO EACH OTHER</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-15 17:32 GMT+01:00 Roelof Meijer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thanks for that, Bruce. And so, a review can lead to a redress, but does<br>
not necessarily do so.<br>
If a review concludes a „a wrong or grievance” (Bruce’s wording) and the<br>
advice is binding, redress will follow. If it does not conclude that,<br>
there will be no redress. If the advice is a recommendation, redress might<br>
follow. Or not.<br>
<br>
So, @Mathieu re the preliminary draft: I would not consider a review<br>
mechanism to be an example of a redress mechanism. A mechanism whereby the<br>
outcome of (a) review(s) are worked into binding measures, is.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Roelof<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 15-01-15 09:18, "Bruce Tonkin" <<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Hello Robin,<br>
><br>
><br>
>>> 1. I think some of the mechanisms that are labeled "redress" are<br>
>>>actually "review". See the definitions below, but basically, since<br>
>>>mechanisms like ReconRequest and IRP and the Ombudsman are only making<br>
>>>recommendations to the board to change its mind on a decision, and have<br>
>>>no authority to set aside a decision on their own, they more<br>
>>>appropriately categorized as "review" mechanisms (and not redress).<br>
><br>
><br>
>Although in terms of an end-to-end process, once the Board approves a<br>
>recommendation from mechanisms like ReconRequest and IRP and the<br>
>Ombudsman it is possible to provide redress where a review has found that<br>
>a decision has violated the bylaws etc. and where the review has<br>
>recommended that ICANN provide redress. In general when one of the<br>
>existing accountability mechanisms finds fault in a decision by the<br>
>Board, the Board would be seeking to provide some form of redress to the<br>
>complainant.<br>
><br>
>This is separate of course from the discussion about whether the outcome<br>
>of an independent review is binding.<br>
><br>
>Just wanted to note that the existing process "can" provide redress, just<br>
>that currently the Board still does have discretion to approve or not<br>
>approve any specific recommendation for redress. If the Ombudsman<br>
>recommended that as a result of a bad decision that the Board provide a<br>
>payment of a Billion dollars to the complaint as a redress mechanism then<br>
>that may be rejected, but if the redress was to allow an applicant to<br>
>proceed to the next stage of say a new gTLD evaluation process - then I<br>
>would expect the Board to provide such redress.<br>
><br>
>I am using "redress" to mean a remedy or compensation for a wrong or<br>
>grievance.<br>
><br>
><br>
>Regards,<br>
>Bruce Tonkin<br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org">Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org</a><br>
><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org">Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>