[CCWG-Accountability] judicial/arbitral function

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Mathieu
Dear All,
I have several comments and one major problem in misconception and misunderstanding propagated by the author of these issues which has led and would further lead to a total misleading of the two terms " Review" and " redress" 
I will revert to you later
Kavouss         

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Jan 2015, at 10:10, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> I support the relevance and importance of the distinction. A description of this distinction is included in the "problem definition" document currently open for your comments and contributions, sections 3b (review) and 3c (redress). 
> 
> Maybe this discussion could be used to check whether the current wording is agreeable to everyone ? 
> 
>> b.      Review mechanisms
>> 
>> The group considers review mechanisms to be mechanisms that assess the performance and relevance of processes or structures, and provide recommendations (binding or not binding) for improvement.
>> 
>> Examples include:
>> 
>> -          Periodic structural reviews of SOs and ACs (as currently mandated in the ICANN Bylaws)
>> -          AoC-mandated ICANN organizational reviews for Accountability and Transparency; Security, Stability, and Resiliency; WHOIS; and Competition and Consumer Trust.
>>  
>> c.      Redress mechanisms
>> 
>> The group defines redress mechanisms as mechanisms that focus on assessing the compliance or relevance of a certain decision, and can conclude to its confirmation, cancellation or amendment. The output of such mechanism shall be binding.
>> 
>> Examples include:
>> 
>> -          Independent Review (if it is considered to be binding)
>> -          State of California or jurisdictions where ICANN has a presence Court decisions
>> 
> 
> May I also seize the opportunity to remind you all that your edits and suggestions are welcome on the rest of the document as well ? 
> 
> Best
> Mathieu
> 
> Le 08/01/2015 22:44, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
>> Hello Paul,
>> 
>> 
>>>>  .  For me, the difference between "review" (i.e. recommendations) and "judicial/arbitral function" (i.e. binding decision that mandates implementation) is key.
>> 
>> Agreed.    That is an important distinction.   
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> -- 
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
> <20140105 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - strawman -coChairs.pdf>
> <20140105 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - strawman -prefinal.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150109/f9390804/attachment.html>