[CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism

[Greg Shatan]

But what about issues other than del/resell? The CWG was not so narrow.

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Good points Greg.  It may make the most sense to simply give gTLD
> registries standing to file an IRP with ICANN as previously agreed to.
> ICANN would be making the decision regarding delegation or re-delegation or
> un-delegation and giving directions to PTI.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:59 AM
> *To:* Alan Greenberg
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; CWG IANA
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
>
>
>
> The Reconsideration process asks the Board to reconsider a decision that
> it has made.  The relevant section of the CWG proposal does not relate to
> ICANN Board decisions at all; rather it relates to actions or inactions of
> PTI (which may or may not be actions or inactions of the PTI Board).
> Therefore, it seems to me that the Reconsideration process is irrelevant to
> this question.  Conceivably, there could be a reconsideration addressed to
> the PTI Board, but that may not meet the need for an appeal from a PTI (not
> PTI board) action or inaction as expressed in the CWG proposal.  I would
> also say that a "reconsideration" BY an organ that has made a decision is
> not the same as an appeal FROM a decision by an organ -- an appeal, almost
> by definition, goes to another entity -- in ICANN process, an Independent
> Review Panel.  We could expand the mandate of the IRP to meet these
> considerations directly, but I don't think anything other than that (or the
> creation of a new appeal mechanism) would satisfy the CWG proposal.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca');>> wrote:
>
> BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT*
> action is subject to an IRP.  Alan
>
> At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');> [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150825/bc783e01/attachment-0001.html>