I have several comments and one major problem in misconception and misunderstanding propagated by the author of these issues which has led and would further lead to a total misleading of the two terms " Review" and " redress"
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.