[CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism

[Alan Greenberg]

Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, 
the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA.

Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions?  I 
would appreciate a substantive example.

Alan

At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Alan,
>
>I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I 
>do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility 
>regardless how remote a chance it might be.
>
>Chuck
>
>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM
>To: CWG IANA
>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
>
>On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a 
>mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring 
>to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed 
>Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, 
>Sub-section 6 which reads:
>
>
>Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an 
>Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. 
>For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters 
>referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have 
>access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not 
>cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which 
>mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition.
>
>I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of 
>IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example 
>being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT 
>be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The 
>CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it 
>is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their 
>could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered 
>despite CSC and other interventions.
>
>In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address 
>the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may 
>never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared 
>to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet.
>
>I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a 
>viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy 
>to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision 
>of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have 
>the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be 
>modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want).
>
>I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to 
>allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process.
>
>Alan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150824/54510f9d/attachment.html>