<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alan Greenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT*
action is subject to an IRP. Alan<span class=""><br><br>
At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote type="cite"><span class="">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>
</span><div><div class="h5"><blockquote type="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" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
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></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>