[Party2] binding outcomes from an independent review process

[Paul Rosenzweig]

I've reviewd that panel .. I am in the least bit persuaded

P

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 5:34 AM
To: wp2 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Party2] binding outcomes from an independent review process

Hello Paul,


>>  The review process I envision is more akin to a return to the pre-April
2013 standard where the arbiter determines (by a preponderance of the
evidence) that the Board and ICANNs actions are procedurally wrong or
transgress a substantive limiting standard

Makes sense to me.   Just a reminder that the change to the standard was
based on the recommendation of the Accountability Structures Expert Panel  -
which was convened with community input.    See page 48 of:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-26oct12-en.pdf .  

It is probably worth reviewing the work of the expert panel - to see what
needs to be changed and what principles should be kept.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
 

_______________________________________________
WP2 mailing list
WP2 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2