[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016

Fri Jan 22 13:52:01 UTC 2016

Hello Jonathan,

A few comments inline and please note that i am speaking within the scope
of names in relation to PTI (which is not the entire PTI scope)

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:

> All,
>
>
>
> We have received a direct request (see below) from the CCWG Accountability
> Co-Chairs for further guidance with respect to the application of the IRP
> to the actions (or inactions) of PTI.
>
>
>
> Moreover, we have had input from Sidley via the Client Committee as
> follows:
>
>
>
> *“Sidley spoke with Becky Burr from CCWG today regarding the CWG
> dependency for an IRP process.   Based on the call, it appears that the
> open question for CWG is whether the CWG dependency is adequately met with
> an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce
> the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by
> PTI that is not cured)  – or whether in addition to such an ICANN bylaw, a
> separate process is also required that would give direct customers a right
> to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues.   If
> the latter is required, then in order for CCWG to create such a process, it
> would need input from CWG on what the standard of review should be for
> those types of proceedings and what the type of process would be – for
> example, would non-binding mediation be sufficient to address a direct
> customer issue or would binding arbitration be required?   By clarifying
> this point, CCWG will be better positioned to ensure that the CWG
> dependency is being met in the CCWG proposal.”*
>
>
>
> So the essential question is:
>
>
>
> A.     Is an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails
> to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material
> performance breach by PTI that is not cured) sufficient?
>
SO: First i like to say this scenario is really an extreme but since we are
addressing extremes, I will try to attempt a response. I believe what is
stated above should be sufficient. I really don't know what we mean by
"ICANN fails to enforce the contract" if ICANN perhaps because PTI (is her
baby) decides to close its eyes on some PTI's actions/inactions that
violates contractual requirements, and after going through the escalation
process (including access to an IRP by the customer) then it logically
means the next level escalation will be triggered (which i believe is to
call for an IFR). I don't think an independent IRP will further help
resolves anything in that case.

>
>
> OR
>
>
>
> B.     In addition to such an ICANN bylaw, is a separate process also
> required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or
> arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues?
>
There will be(/are) 3 main customers of PTI, in this case ICANN
(representing names), numbers and protocol (even though the duo will
contract directly with ICANN). If by "direct" we mean ccTLD and gTLD
operators then i don't think it will make any difference on whether the IRP
is separate from the one enabled by the bylaw. Each of such customers
signed contract with ICANN and when PTI does not meet their
expectation(after exhausting the escalation options set within PTI
including that of the CSC), then the customer may take it up to the next
level using the ICANN IRP.

Overall, i think it will be neater and easier to use the first option
unless there is a strong reason why the proposed CCWG IRP would not be able
to meet up (perhaps on experience reasons) and i believe its consistent
with the CWG requirement which i quote below:

"....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........"

Regards

>
>
> If B above, what type of process is necessary?
>
>
>
> As discussed in our CWG meeting yesterday, it will be particularly helpful
> if when responding to the above, you provide a rationale for your response.
>
> In addition, if possible, please make reference to (and be consistent
> with) the prior work of this CWG Stewardship (such as our proposal in
> response to the RFP from the ICG).
>
>
>
> Given that the request from the CCWG Co-Chairs indicates their need to
> close this item by 28 January, we need to discuss this soon. Accordingly,
> we request that you provide input ASAP and, in any event, *by 23h59 UTC
> Monday 25 January 2016*.
>
>
>
> Thank-you,
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan & Lise
>
> Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship
>
>
>
> *From:* Alice Jansen [mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org]
> *Sent:* 21 January 2016 17:05
> *To:* Lise Fuhr <Fuhr at etno.eu>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> *Cc:* Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <
> thomas at rickert.net>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>;
> Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>; acct-staff at icann.org
> *Subject:* CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP
>
>
>
> *Sent on behalf of CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs*
>
>
>
> Dear Lise, Dear Jonathan,
>
> This is to inform you that further to our call #79, the CCWG-ACCT seeks
> the CWG-Stewardship’s guidance on the two proposed approaches that were
> suggested to address the dependency that relates to PTI compliance through
> the Independent Review Process (IRP) i.e.:
>
> 1.      Provide direct access to IRP for PTI action or inaction;
>
> 2.      Oblige ICANN in Bylaws to ensure PTI compliance, in which case
> failure to do is covered by IRP.
>
> We are currently in the final stages of discussion to issue our
> supplemental report and would need to close this item by 28 January. Any
> prompt feedback you could send us would be much appreciated.
>
> We look forward to your guidance.
>
> Thank you
>
> Best regards
>
> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160122/ad46c597/attachment-0001.html>