Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Jan 20 05:35:56 UTC 2016


I agree with your analysis and share your concern.  The PTI IRP is
fundamentally not a Bylaws issue (or more accurately -- fundamentally not a
"violation of the Bylaws" issue).

Having "borrowed" the IRP in an attempt to fill the requirements of the
CWG, we can't then pretend that the requirements of the CWG are coterminous
with the general design of the IRP.  The CWG's requirements will require a
specific statement of the basis on which a claim may be brought -- and it
is a different basis than for other IRP claims.  This doesn't have to be
long, but it does have to be right.

Conversely, if we are truly wedded to the idea that the IRP is a "bylaws
court" and nothing more, then it can't be used to satisfy the CWG's
requirement and we will need to do something else.  Personally, I don't
endorse this position (though it does raise some concern about the ability
of the panel to deal with PTI failures, if it is designed to be a bylaws
court.  That said, I have sufficient faith in the skill of experienced
arbitrators to be able to resolve a variety of disputes.)

Since this a requirement for the transition, we need to resolve this
crisply, explicitly and appropriately.


On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 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.
> avri
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160120/6c96f4df/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list