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

[Matthew Shears]

Would it be useful to try and list the possible situations where 
recourse to an appeals mechanism would be used?  This might give us a 
better sense of what type of mechanism would be suited and whether or 
not the IRP would be appropriate/adequate?

Matthew

On 22/01/2016 12:33, Jonathan Robinson 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160125/7601f177/attachment.html>