Chris, this is an amazingly good idea :-)-O As long as the case is closed. el On 2015-03-04 08:07, Chris Disspain wrote:
Greg,
I think both you and Philip raise interesting points. A useful exercise for the CCWG may be to examine the booking.com <http://booking.com> -v- ICANN IPR and consider what recourse mechanisms the CCWG believes should have been available to any of the relevant parties and at what times during the process. This may help clarify the difference between (and community desire for) recourse mechanisms that test policy decisions, decisions of independent panels, decisions of the Board and so on.
And, as a separate question, in respect to your comments below about mechanisms that go directly to the merits of a decision, what decision would that apply to in this case?
Cheers,
Chris Disspain
[...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/