<p dir="ltr">On 22 Jan 2016 6:11 p.m., "Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 22-Jan-16 08:52, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
> > A few comments inline and please note that i am speaking within the<br>
> > scope of names in relation to PTI (which is not the entire PTI scope)<br>
><br>
><br>
> I think this is overstated. Yes the PTI only deals with names<br>
> directly. But for protocols and numbers, it relies on ICANN to deal<br>
> with PTI. So how is ICANN supposed to protect the interests and appeals<br>
> on behalf of its customers?<br>
> .........we need *for* a way for such<br>
> appeals to be made on our behalf, either by the CSC or by ICANN itself.<br>
><br>
SO: When you say "we/our behalf", who were you referring to? If that refers to CWG, yes I don't disagree with that as that is within the names scope. Numbers (and I believe protocol) have their way of reviewing and resolving any action/inaction of ICANN (PTI) as stipulated in their respective transition proposals(and subsequently the SLAs).</p>
<p dir="ltr">I have no idea why numbers community customer will want to utilise the ICANN IRP as a result of PTI action/inaction as they have their process defined independently, and I expect same applies to protocol parameters as well.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Secondly I have NO idea why ICANN as a corporation will want to use an IRP to compel PTI to comply PTI's action/inaction considering that ICANN is the only member of PTI and as such has (logical) control over it.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I believe we should not loose the heart of the question which simply ask whether the ICANN IRP (as robustly proposed by CCWG) would be sufficient in a situation where ICANN keeps quite on PTI's action/inaction that violates the contractual obligations between ICANN and PTI. From a separate response you wrote, you seem to imply that it is possible to use the IRP if the scope is well defined in the bylaw (ref: So either we need a bylaw that covers all the conditions on which an appeal would be made). It therefore seem we are in agreement afterall.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">> avri<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"> https</a><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">://</a><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">/antivirus</a><br>
><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"> https</a><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">://</a><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">mm.icann.org</a><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">/mailman/</a><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">listinfo</a><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">/</a><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</p>