<html>
<body>
Well, decisions tend to be made. Period. SO if some one uses any
mechanism, it will lengthen the overall process. Or if the problem is
that no decision was taken, this could shorten it.<br><br>
At 25/08/2015 02:56 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Alan,<br>
<br>
does this mean that some decisions, which considering the IANA
environment where decisions might need to be taken fast, might end up
being delayed through two reconsiderations/appeals?<br>
Kindest regards,<br><br>
Olivier<br><br>
On 25/08/2015 06:34, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">BTW, I presume that once we use
the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an
IRP. Alan<br><br>
At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Chuck, during the call, you
mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since
that is an ICANN action, not IANA. <br><br>
Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I
would appreciate a substantive example.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Alan,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan
Greenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> CWG IANA<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism<br>
<br>
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:<br><br>
<br>
<i>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.<br>
</i><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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).<br><br>
I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for
a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration
process.<br><br>
Alan</blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote><br>
<br>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre></blockquote><br><br>
<pre>--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
<a href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a>
</pre></blockquote></body>
</html>