Dear Colleagues, I support the relevance and importance of the distinction. A description of this distinction is included in the "problem definition" document currently open for your comments and contributions, sections 3b (review) and 3c (redress). Maybe this discussion could be used to check whether the current wording is agreeable to everyone ?
b._Review mechanisms_
The group considers review mechanisms to be mechanisms that assess the performance and relevance of processes or structures, and provide recommendations (binding or not binding) for improvement.
Examples include:
-Periodic structural reviews of SOs and ACs (as currently mandated in the ICANN Bylaws)
-AoC-mandated ICANN organizational reviews for Accountability and Transparency; Security, Stability, and Resiliency; WHOIS; and Competition and Consumer Trust.
c._Redress mechanisms_
The group defines redress mechanisms as mechanisms that focus on assessing the compliance or relevance of a certain decision, and can conclude to its confirmation, cancellation or amendment. The output of such mechanism shall be binding.
Examples include:
-Independent Review (if it is considered to be binding)
-State of California or jurisdictions where ICANN has a presence Court decisions
May I also seize the opportunity to remind you all that your edits and suggestions are welcome on the rest of the document as well ? Best Mathieu Le 08/01/2015 22:44, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
Hello Paul,
. For me, the difference between "review" (i.e. recommendations) and "judicial/arbitral function" (i.e. binding decision that mandates implementation) is key.
Agreed. That is an important distinction.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************