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:

Comments from Kavouss

1.The outcome from the review mechanism is never binding due to the legal connotation of the Term " Review" . Review is review  has always had optional character and never has been binding

-          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.

Comments from Kavouss

2. You have referred to  Periodic structural reviews of SOs and ACs (as currently mandated in the ICANN Bylaws.But this is valid in regard with present structure  which is based on terms and conditions of AoC Bylaws, Article of corporation where as the future structure may be totally different

 

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 décisions

Comments from Kavouss

With respect to the first indent ,as I explained Under general comments redressing process  has always been mandatory and binding since without that how the inconsistencies, defficiencies ,problems are identified Under the review process are redressed if the process was not mandatory / binding .

In view of the above, there is a need to clarify the matter.

I guess people are thinking of Review process similar to ATRT process which is totally optional in the implementation . That does not work .If you take that path there would be no accountability at all.

Moreover, As I have already indicated you need to make a clear distinction between the Policy, Policy making and Policy implementing entities and processes.

I do not uinderstand why we always by passed that important process .

I have made such suggestions several times but the two ch chairs have ignored that to be included in the agenda

The question is are we make evry possible effrort to maintain the existing process which is not acutally accountable to any one but on certain cases is accountable to NTIA  or

We need to establish the separation of process and responsibilty through an appropriate mechanism having two steps" Review "and the "Redress " the former is  essential to be done periodically while the outcome once considered under the latter process" Redress " is mandatory .

Then we need to describe

Who is the Policy making entity

Who is the Policy implementing entity

And what are the terms . conditions, provisions and content of Policy .

Thes should be clarified.

Regards

Kavouss