[CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism

[Gomes, Chuck]

I was not intending to narrow it, just giving some examples.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:17 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Alan Greenberg; CWG IANA
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism

But what about issues other than del/resell? The CWG was not so narrow.

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
Good points Greg.  It may make the most sense to simply give gTLD registries standing to file an IRP with ICANN as previously agreed to.  ICANN would be making the decision regarding delegation or re-delegation or un-delegation and giving directions to PTI.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:59 AM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; CWG IANA
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism

The Reconsideration process asks the Board to reconsider a decision that it has made.  The relevant section of the CWG proposal does not relate to ICANN Board decisions at all; rather it relates to actions or inactions of PTI (which may or may not be actions or inactions of the PTI Board).  Therefore, it seems to me that the Reconsideration process is irrelevant to this question.  Conceivably, there could be a reconsideration addressed to the PTI Board, but that may not meet the need for an appeal from a PTI (not PTI board) action or inaction as expressed in the CWG proposal.  I would also say that a "reconsideration" BY an organ that has made a decision is not the same as an appeal FROM a decision by an organ -- an appeal, almost by definition, goes to another entity -- in ICANN process, an Independent Review Panel.  We could expand the mandate of the IRP to meet these considerations directly, but I don't think anything other than that (or the creation of a new appeal mechanism) would satisfy the CWG proposal.

Greg

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca');>> wrote:
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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20150825/45ab5d6e/attachment.html>