[CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism

[Alan Greenberg]

Greg,

If you go back to my original message, I suggested altering the rules 
of Reconsideration to include not only decisions of staff and Board, 
but also those of subsidiaries or fully-controlled affiliates. Yes, 
the is not REconsidering a prior decision of the Board, but neither 
is such a process looking at staff decisions.

Alan

At 25/08/2015 02:59 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>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 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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: 
>>><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>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
>>_______________________________________________
>>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>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/20150825/7e7f1d10/attachment-0001.html>