I agree with Marilyn. Regards On 3/8/15, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
In my view, examining how existing accountability mechanisms are working is useful to the WG. without taking up specific cases. I think that is what Becky has proposed.
so, the issue may be how to "take learning" from past uses of accountability mechanisms, and try to "test" those against present and future challenges, and then figure out improvements.
Marilyn Cade
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 6, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
+1
Keith
On Mar 6, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
Kavouss, all -
I agree with Kavouss that it is not within our remit to second guess specific ongoing disputes. (I’m not sure that anyone suggested writing to ICANN on the .hotel matter, but if so, I think that would also be outside our mandate.) That said, the declaration in the Booking.com case has a very interesting and informative discussion about the reconsideration process in general that I do think is highly relevant to our work.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 6, 2015 at 2:40 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Declaration issued in the Booking.com v ICANN IRP
Dear All, With respect to the problem raised by Booking.com, it is my strong view that CCWG should not get involved in any sopecific string rather concdntrate of the nature of the complaint .and address that as a principle in its finding. Writting tio ICANN with specific refernce to booking.com string .hotel is outside of our mandate as it is an issue for ICANN to resolve no doubt in consultaion with GAC. Let us concenrate of the principles and not specific string, gTLD . Regards Kavouss r
2015-03-06 8:11 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Alice,
this is what I have been saying, for quite a while now.
We are not happy with the Board (as an example),
so, we add another review mechanism, with which we are not happy,
so, we need another redress mechanism.
Guess what? we might need arbitration in case we are not happy with the redress...
I remain convinced that (to speak in my profession's language) that we are treating the symptoms instead of making a proper diagnosis and treat the underlying cause.
greetings, el
On 2015-03-06 08:44, Alice Munyua wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you may be aware, the African Union Commission endorsed application for the new gTLD (dot Africa) has been the subject of a series of applications for review by another applicant including the IRP initiated in October 2013.
Article 4 Section 3 of the Bylaws, which state (amongst others) that:
* “The IRP Panel should strive to issue its written declaration no later than six months after the filing of the request for independent review. * In order to keep the costs and burdens of independent review as low as possible, the IRP Panel should conduct its proceedings by email and otherwise via the Internet to the maximum extent feasible. Where necessary, the IRP Panel may hold meetings by telephone. In the unlikely event that a telephonic or in-person hearing is convened, the hearing shall be limited to argument only *
The IR Panel has so far
o Applied interim protections stopping ICANN from progressing any application for dot Africa until the Panel has concluded its work;
o Determined that a formal hearing, including calling of witnesses, should occur;
o Decided to convene an in person hearing including cross-examination of witnesses, which has not taken place yet due to the withdrawal of a panel member.
o Not set a time for completion, despite the By Laws requiring a Panel to strive to issue its written declaration no later than six months after the filing of a Request (Article IV, s.3)
Our observation is that this important accountability (IRP) process in its current form is dysfunctional and does not seem to benefit any of the affected parties.
While we focus on strengthening review and redress mechanisms for example by making them more accessible (through lower costs and easier “standing” to make a complaint) and applicable to a wider range of Board decisions, etc, we would also like to provisions put in place to ensure that there is redress against the dispute resolution provider in the event that the process goes off-track.
There are several possible inputs to the enhancing ICANN accountability process that draw on the dot Africa experience to date.
o Community Empowerment (WP1)
§ Community empowerment with regard to ICANN functions needs to be exercised responsibly: If there are checks and balances on ICANN, what checks and balances apply to different sections of the ICANN community?
§ Process issues need to be considered from the viewpoint of those who are simply trying to conduct legitimate business with ICANN.
§ There is a need to avoid legitimate public policy, commercial and technical objectives, for example from new gTLD applicants in underserved regions, being frustrated by lengthy procedural delays through no fault of those trying to achieve them
o Review and Redress (WP2)
§ Grounds for review, especially at the IRP stage, should be clearly specified.
§ All review processes should have some form of time limit for each stage, but allowing for some flexibility in specified circumstances.
§ Any proposal for ICANN to be bound by an arbitration process needs to be considered carefully and subject to rigorous appraisal.
§ Redress against the dispute resolution provider in the event that the process goes off-track.
o Stress Testing (or Contingencies)
§ These should include the risk of gridlocking ICANN decision-making through use of cascading review mechanisms.
§ Any of the parties exploited ICANN’s hands-off approach to the detriment of other stakeholders and affected parties. Any accountability process should in turn have its own accountability fail-safes.
Best regards Alice Munyua African Union Commission (AUC)
[...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/