Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Wed Jan 20 13:03:03 UTC 2016

Dear Avri,

Thanks for clarifying the concern that you mentioned briefly in the chat
during yesterday's call. The point you are raising deserves our immediate
attention since it is related to a CWG requirement.

My understanding is that the question for our group is whether we would
expand the standard of review of the IRP, in the specific case where a
challenge would be upon a PTI action or inaction ? I would suppose that
this specific standard of review (beyond the agreed-on "compliance with
the Bylaws" standard) would be specified by the CWG-Stewardship in the
implementation phase ?


-----Message d'origine-----
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de
Avri Doria
Envoyé : mercredi 20 janvier 2016 06:25
À : Accountability Cross Community
Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP


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.

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list