[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] For your review - updated proposal for individual appeals mechanism
maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
Sat Aug 17 00:57:48 UTC 2019
I guess I say "in case" because from my recent experience of getting some
of our end-user group to ATLAS, just as an example, it doesn't matter how
fair or transparent the process may be, there are still people who are
going to attack it on he basis of unfairness or prejudice of some sort. And
you are right, they waste an inordinate amount of time.
My point therefore, is if we are going to have an appeals process because
that is what has been suggested by the Executive Group, then it should be
as short as possible and to the point.
But Im not sure if we are discussing an ICANN process or an independent
process for appeals?
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:38 PM John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> > I believe that we should still have an appeals process just in case -
> > a much lighter touch and being very clear what the process addresses
> Sorry, but I have no idea just in case what? I can imagine all sorts of
> implausible ways that processes might fail but that doesn't mean we have
> to invent a meta-process to deal with them all. If it's an ICANN process
> failure, why wouldn't the existing ombudsman and appeal be used?
> Any grant appeals process is going to be clogged by merit-free complaints
> from people who are unhappy that their wonderful proposals didn't get
> funded. It will be a huge waste of time.
> John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds