[CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism

[Alan Greenberg]

BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, 
*THAT* action is subject to an IRP.  Alan

At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, 
>the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA.
>
>Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions?  I 
>would appreciate a substantive example.
>
>Alan
>
>At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>Alan,
>>
>>I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I 
>>do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility 
>>regardless how remote a chance it might be.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [ 
>>mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>>Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM
>>To: CWG IANA
>>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
>>
>>On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a 
>>mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring 
>>to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed 
>>Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, 
>>Sub-section 6 which reads:
>>
>>
>>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 made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of 
>>IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole 
>>example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry 
>>should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather 
>>moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be 
>>provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and 
>>admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and 
>>not altered despite CSC and other interventions.
>>
>>In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address 
>>the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may 
>>never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared 
>>to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet.
>>
>>I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a 
>>viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy 
>>to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision 
>>of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have 
>>the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be 
>>modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want).
>>
>>I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to 
>>allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process.
>>
>>Alan
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150825/f36cdc1e/attachment-0001.html>