[CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism

[Alan Greenberg]

Well, decisions tend to be made. Period. SO if 
some one uses any mechanism, it will lengthen the 
overall process. Or if the problem is that no 
decision was taken, this could shorten it.

At 25/08/2015 02:56 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>
>does this mean that some decisions, which 
>considering the IANA environment where decisions 
>might need to be taken fast, might end up being 
>delayed through two reconsiderations/appeals?
>Kindest regards,
>
>Olivier
>
>On 25/08/2015 06:34, Alan Greenberg 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: 
>>>><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>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
>>><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>--
>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
><http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150825/342f1938/attachment.html>