<html>
<body>
Greg, <br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 25/08/2015 02:59 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.<br><br>
Greg<br><br>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process,
*THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan<br><br>
<dd>At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those,
the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA. <br><br>
<dd>Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I
would appreciate a substantive example.<br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<dd>At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Alan,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Chuck<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>] On Behalf Of </b>Alan
Greenberg<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> CWG IANA<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Alan</blockquote>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>