Matthew Shears mshears at cdt.org
Wed Jan 20 13:06:59 UTC 2016

+ 1 Avri and Greg and agree this needs to be addressed before we close 
the discussion on the IRP.

On 20/01/2016 05:35, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Avri,
> 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.
> Greg
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160120/ea754e77/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list