<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Maybe what is needed is an abbreviated appeals process designed to work in a more timely manner given the specialized nature of the subject matter.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>On 25/08/2015 06:34, Alan Greenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="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">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">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>
_______________________________________________<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>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><pre cols="72">--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
<a href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html" target="_blank">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a>
</pre>
</font></span></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>