> I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "designed to support whatever decision is made by the staff and Board, irrespective of whether that is a good decision or not,"  That's a phrasing that seems to ascribe ill intent, which i think is an exercise too often engaged in within this community and less often correct than those that indulge in it think.  


In a rush to discredit my response you have rather missed the point, Greg.

The point is that defence of whatever is decided is taken to be more important than reaching the right decision.

That is an unfortunate reality that needs to be tackled. Tinkering with processes is only going to create more tension.

The start point needs to be a recognition that ICANN will on occasion make the wrong decision and a discussion about how that can be rectified without it impinging on ICANN's overall authority.

If we try to simply add things onto mechanisms that have been have at their core the idea of protecting Board decisions at all costs, then we'll all be back here again in 10 years wondering why things haven't improved.


Kieren




-
[sent through phone]


On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

An appeal or review process that is limited to challenging procedural and process errors, and that leaves no recourse to challenge the merits of a decision, or the merits of the policies and procedures used to arrive at that decision, is so narrowly cast as to be worthless in the vast majority of cases.  The fact that it is used as often as it is speaks much more to the importance of the decisions and to the desperate desire of the community for recourse than it does to the value of the review mechanism itself.  It's like drinking from a muddy, stream when you're thirsty -- you drink in hope of satisfaction but end up no better than when you started (or worse, if you count the time, money and resources expended (or the e. coli in the stream).

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "designed to support whatever decision is made by the staff and Board, irrespective of whether that is a good decision or not,"  That's a phrasing that seems to ascribe ill intent, which i think is an exercise too often engaged in within this community and less often correct than those that indulge in it think.  I think it is enough to say that it was not intended to allow any challenge to a decision on the merits, so whether a decision is good or bad is irrelevant to this mechanism. 

If the community wants a mechanism that goes directly to the merits of a decision (as opposed to "back door" challenges to procedure), this ain't it.  

If the community wants a mechanism that goes directly to the merits of a decision, then it's up to this group at this time to push forward toward that goal.

Greg

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
So I've just read it all.

My take away is what I believe many of us are already aware of: that the current accountability systems are designed to support whatever decision is made by the staff and Board, irrespective of whether that is a good decision or not.

In other words, the accountability mechanisms provide no way to force a reversal of a decision even when Board members and the review panel itself think the wrong conclusion had been reached.

For real accountability - rather than long expensive and largely pointless processes - there need to be mechanisms in which the decision itself can be questioned, in which staff can be found to have withheld useful information and held to account for that, in which ICANN corporate is not pitched against an applicant, and in which the people carrying out the review don't have to say "it sucks but there's nothing we can do about it".


Kieren


-
[sent through phone]


On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

I have not had a chance to review the entire 50-page document, but the heart of the decision is at the Conclusion, Sections 141-147 on pp.42-43. (decision attached)

 

The panel states that the limited nature of the current IRP means that any complainant faces an “uphill battle” and “significant obstavles.> That is especially true where, as here, the adopted policies and procedures are followed, with no available recourse to contesting the soundness of those policies and procedures.

 

The decision is a good example of the bounds of the current system. The question is to what extent new accountability measures should make challenges to Board actions less of an uphill battle, or provide a basis for challenging the underlying policies and procedures.

 

 

 

 

 

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell

 

Twitter: @VlawDC

 

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Eisner
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:06 PM
To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Declaration issued in the Booking.com v ICANN IRP

 

ICANN received today the final declaration in the independent review proceeding filed by Booking.com. The declaration can be found at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-declaration-03mar15-en.pdf. 

 

Best,

 

Samantha 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9218 - Release Date: 03/03/15

<ICANN-ACCT-Bookingdotcom_IRP-final-declaration-03mar15-en.pdf>


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community




--

Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab

Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet

666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621

Direct  212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022

Fax  212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428

gsshatan@lawabel.com

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com

www.lawabel.com