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

[Seun Ojedeji]

On 22 Jan 2016 6:11 p.m., "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 22-Jan-16 08:52, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> > 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)
>
>
> I think this is overstated.  Yes the PTI only deals with names
> directly.  But for protocols and numbers, it relies on ICANN to deal
> with PTI.  So how is ICANN supposed to protect the interests and appeals
> on behalf of its customers?
> .........we need *for* a way for such
> appeals to be made on our behalf, either by the CSC or by ICANN itself.
>
SO: When you say "we/our behalf", who were you referring to? If that refers
to CWG, yes I don't disagree with that as that is within the names scope.
Numbers (and I believe protocol) have their way of reviewing and resolving
any action/inaction of ICANN (PTI) as stipulated in their respective
transition proposals(and subsequently the SLAs).

I have no idea why numbers community customer will want to utilise the
ICANN IRP as a result of PTI action/inaction as they have their process
defined independently, and I expect same applies to protocol parameters as
well.

Secondly I have NO idea why ICANN as a corporation will want to use an IRP
to compel PTI to comply PTI's action/inaction considering that ICANN is the
only member of PTI and as such has (logical) control over it.

I believe we should not loose the heart of the question which simply ask
whether the ICANN IRP (as robustly proposed by CCWG) would be sufficient in
a situation where ICANN keeps quite on PTI's action/inaction that violates
the contractual obligations between ICANN and PTI. From a separate response
you wrote, you seem to imply that it is possible to use the IRP if the
scope is well defined in the bylaw (ref: So either we need a bylaw that
covers all the conditions on which an appeal would be made). It therefore
seem we are in agreement afterall.

Regards

> avri
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>://
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>/antivirus
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>://
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>mm.icann.org
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>/mailman/
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>listinfo
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>/
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>cwg-stewardship
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160122/c8c01fb9/attachment.html>