[CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP
avri at acm.org
Wed Jan 20 05:25:05 UTC 2016
I am uncomfortable with closing the discussion of the new principles for
the IRP. Since we decided not to create a new entity to serve the
requirements of the CWG but rather to make it a function of the IRP, we
need to make sure that the basis for the IRP is fit for purpose before
starting on its implementation.
The CWG calls for:
> 1. *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.
I do not see how to define this function in terms of By Laws alone as By
Laws have little to say about negotiated SLAs and the customers' or CSC
complaints. Perhaps it can be done by changes to some of the By Laws,
but I do not see us as having scoped out what those changes need to be.
So until such time as we have dealt the the policy issues of filling the
CWG's requirements, I would like to register a personal caution, and
thus an objection, to closing the discussion of the basis and standing
for IRP appeals. I do not believe this is merely an implementation
issue. At least not yet.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community