This discussion and the independent review panel discussions are useful but I am concerned that there is a more fundamental issue. There needs to be a full assessment of what can go to reconsideration, and what should go to an independent review panel. If we are looking at issues of accountability in the context of dispute resolution procedures, then we need to take a systematic approach. The 1st issue is the entry level for disputes. Are we trying to tweak the existing systems, which have well-recognised deficiencies, or are we trying to provide a better dispute resolution system? If this is the case, then we need to think about criteria for entry into such a system, with structure and procedure to enable the disputes to be handled with appropriate standards of procedural fairness. There are issues for example with reconsideration where as the ombudsman I have received complaints about a conflict of interest between different committees of the board resulting in a decision being heard by the board governance committee for reconsideration decisions, where the complainant has said that the conflicts of interest are fatal to a fair procedure. I immediately note that this is not the view of at least some members of the board, but perception of bias is a critical issue and designing a system, and should be avoided. Similar issues arise with the IRP. There is discussion about how this operates and members of the panel to be selected. There are mature appointment systems with a number of organisations such as ICC and WIPO, and rather than have panels selected by the community, again what some possible connection causing a problem of perception of bias, it would be very easy to tap into those resources to appoint experienced panellists. Again, the entry level requirements for IRP need to be carefully considered once the reconsideration process has been properly discussed. Are we talking about a more wide-ranging process for deciding disputes? Or is this just the narrow existing process, which we want to work better? Just some discussion points. Chris LaHatte Ombudsman From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 4:18 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Hi, Does there need to be reconsideration based on a claim that staff action contravenes PDP developed policy? Or was that contained in one of the included issues already? avri On 08-Mar-15 18:19, Robin Gross wrote: Hello, This email is to kick-off the discussion for the Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Mechanisms. Volunteers so far: Robin Gross, Ed Morris, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Carlos Gutierrez (please send a note to <alice.jansen@icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org> > to volunteer for this sub-group). This WP2 sub-group should will look specifically at issues to be addressed with respect to improving ICANN's accountability mechanisms involving a reconsideration process of a board or management decision. Specific Task: To review the current rules under which reconsideration occurs, and to propose appropriate changes to those rules to create adequate accountability. Existing "Reconsideration Request" accountability mechanism: See ICANN Bylaws Art. IV, Sec. 2) Board reconsideration of: - One or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies); or - One or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the party submitting the request could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or - One or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that are taken as a result of the Board's reliance on false or inaccurate material information. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestions for Change/Enhancement ICANN's Reconsideration Processes: 1. Mechanism for review of Board or management action in conflict with ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. 2. Mechanism to require community (members, AC/SOs, etc.) to require Board to act on, implement, amend, accelerate implementation of, a previously approved ATRT recommendation. 3. Change bylaws for Reconsideration Process: trigger when board acts arbitrarily or capriciously; decisions subject to Independent Review. 4. Reconsideration of staff action/inaction. 5. Broadly expand grounds on which ICANN decisions and operations can be challenged; lower threshold to succeed in a challenge. 6. Reasonable time deadlines and other due process considerations. What else? ------------------ Proposal to address implementation and operational issues including: . Standing . Standard of review . Composition . Selection . Decision-making . Accessibility * Implementation * Due process Work Party 2 Reconsideration mailing list - wp2-reconsideration@icann.org <mailto:wp2-reconsideration@icann.org> - is now active. Public archives may be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-reconsideration/ May this sub-group please have a wiki page? Thank you. Please volunteer for this sub-group - especially if you have any experience with ICANN's reconsideration process. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _____ <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>

That's a good point Suzanne. And in the area of transparency, we should also look at the IRP redaction policy. Some of the published decisions are heavily redacted - at least that is how some appear. Obviously there are legitimate areas for redaction and they should be retained but it merits a look to see if more information cannot be made public and, if not, whether there are measures in place to test the redactions periodically to see if the need for confidentiality might have passed. David McAuley From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Suzanne Radell Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:57 PM To: 'Robin Gross'; wp2-reconsideration@icann.org Cc: wp2@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Hi all, and many thanks to Robin and others for their contributions. I am not sure my proposal will be as constructive as others, but I'm willing to give it a try. It would be helpful if work on this issue could also address the transparency aspects of the IRP, which would optimally provide for more access to updates/information (or at least that information which is not considered confidential) on a regular or routine basis. At present, the site contains the basic data related to the filing of an IRP and will provide the results of an IRP that has been completed. For all of the pending requests, there is no way for anyone other than the parties directly involved in an IRP to learn the status or the results of the CEP and/or the IRP itself. As an example, and I will defer to Alice Munyua on this to confirm, if the question had not been put to the ICANN Board by the African Union Commission during the GAC-Board meeting in Singapore seeking a status report of the .africa IRP, we would not have learned that the panel's work was in abeyance due to the death of one of the panelists. And all we know at the present time is that the work has been halted; no sense of when it might re-start, much less conclude. In looking at the list of issues embedded further down in this email chain, I initially thought that "accessibility" might be the right heading, but have since retreated from that since it applies more to who has access to an IRP and under what conditions. Would a more general "transparency" heading work? I trust you will let me know if you think this is a non-starter, so let me thank you (!) in advance for your feedback. Cheers, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA sradell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov> 202-482-3167 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:58 PM To: wp2-reconsideration@icann.org<mailto:wp2-reconsideration@icann.org> Cc: wp2@icann.org<mailto:wp2@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Below are a few further elaborations on the Reconsideration Request reforms that are needed. Please provide additional feedback and suggestions on how to reform this process. Thanks, Robin ICANN Bylaws, Art IV, Section 2 is on the Reconsideration Review Process https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en Reconsideration Request reforms to address implementation and operational issues including: 1. Standing Amend "who" has proper standing to file a Reconsideration Request to widen its scope to include any party impacted by the ICANN decision / inaction. The current two step test of demonstrating both i) material harm, and ii) adversely impact is too burdensome and restrictive. Current rule: "Every requestor must be able to demonstrate that it has been materially harmed and adversely impacted by the action or inaction giving rise to the request." - Bylaws IV Section 2, Para 8 2. Standard of Review Amend the standard of reviewing a Reconsideration Request to include a re-examination of the underlying merits of arguments and decisions. Also broaden the types of decisions which can re-examined. Also, amend when BGC may "summarily" dismiss a request based on Requester not participating in a public comment period on the issue. (Para 9) 3. Composition Currently, the Board Governance Committee works with the legal dept to formulate an initial recommendation* to the full board. While I understand the need for some legal advice to the BGC, it may be the case that less reliance on the legal dept to guide the BGC on its recommendation would be more fruitful and encourage the board members themselves to engage deeper in the process, obtain a greater understanding of the underlying issue, and take more responsibility for making these decisions. (*Except: Issues regarding staff action/inactions and 3rd party panels in new gtld program, in which the BGC has option of making final decision itself, rather than full board. This should be amended so entire board learns what staff is up to, not just BGC). 4. Selection N/A 5. Decision-making Transparency improvements are needed regarding the information that make up the decision-making process. Reconsideration Request decisions currently have "precedential value" - so a party affected by a previous decision should be able to challenge the previous decision to which his case is bound under precedent. 6. Accessibility Extend the time deadline for filing a Reconsideration Request to 30 days. Currently, the deadline for filing is (generally) 15 days from when decision/action is taken and posted or when one can reasonably conclude action/decision will not happen. 7. Implementation Requestors may need a follow-up process regarding implementation of decision reconsidered 8. Due process Provide opportunity for oral argument with rebuttal opportunity. Currently it is at the Board's option if it wishes to permit an oral discussion. Provide all briefing materials supplied to board to Requester so that they may know the arguments against them and have an opportunity to respond. Final decisions should be issued sooner. Requests for "urgent" reconsideration should be broadened and less subjective in criteria for acceptance of "urgency". What else???? On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote: Hello, This email is to kick-off the discussion for the Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Mechanisms. Volunteers so far: Robin Gross, Ed Morris, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Carlos Gutierrez (please send a note to <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> to volunteer for this sub-group). This WP2 sub-group should will look specifically at issues to be addressed with respect to improving ICANN's accountability mechanisms involving a reconsideration process of a board or management decision. Specific Task: To review the current rules under which reconsideration occurs, and to propose appropriate changes to those rules to create adequate accountability. Existing "Reconsideration Request" accountability mechanism: See ICANN Bylaws Art. IV, Sec. 2) Board reconsideration of: - One or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies); or - One or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the party submitting the request could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or - One or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that are taken as a result of the Board's reliance on false or inaccurate material information. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestions for Change/Enhancement ICANN's Reconsideration Processes: 1. Mechanism for review of Board or management action in conflict with ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. 2. Mechanism to require community (members, AC/SOs, etc.) to require Board to act on, implement, amend, accelerate implementation of, a previously approved ATRT recommendation. 3. Change bylaws for Reconsideration Process: trigger when board acts arbitrarily or capriciously; decisions subject to Independent Review. 4. Reconsideration of staff action/inaction. 5. Broadly expand grounds on which ICANN decisions and operations can be challenged; lower threshold to succeed in a challenge. 6. Reasonable time deadlines and other due process considerations. What else? ------------------ Proposal to address implementation and operational issues including: * Standing * Standard of review * Composition * Selection * Decision-making * Accessibility * Implementation * Due process Work Party 2 Reconsideration mailing list - wp2-reconsideration@icann.org<mailto:wp2-reconsideration@icann.org> - is now active. Public archives may be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-reconsideration/ May this sub-group please have a wiki page? Thank you. Please volunteer for this sub-group - especially if you have any experience with ICANN's reconsideration process. Thanks, Robin

Hello again Suzanne, There is a point I want to clarify about my redactions posting last evening. I should have used the word "arguments" instead of "decisions." I meant to convey my concern with some arguments - the one I am most familiar with is the DotConnectAfrica IRP case that is still ongoing. There are redactions in ICANN's Dec. 4th response to DCA's submission on the merits of the case (after a number of procedural rulings and unexpected delays - the case deals with a claim that DCA's application for the .africa TLD has been mishandled). There are times, IMO, when the arguments are more important to read than the decisions. And I suspect that argument redactions work their way into eventual decisions in that panels probably observe the withholding of information by not making specific reference to it in the decisions. There are probably good reasons for the redactions. But those reasons may diminish over time such that disclosure can come later. It may make sense to footnote redactions and explain in general terms why the information was held as non-public. For instance, "Paragraph 34 of ICANN's response on the merits of DCA's argument was redacted because [e.g.] it contains third party confidential, proprietary information." Or "it contains an individual's private data" or some such thing - or include a redaction ledger at the end of the brief with general explanations. If there are explanations in the documents I have missed them somehow. David McAuley From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 6:03 PM To: McAuley, David; 'Robin Gross'; wp2-reconsideration@icann.org Cc: wp2@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Thanks, David. My one first hand experience with ICANN redaction policy was the ICANN Board decision taken in June 2011 with regard to the GAC's advice for the protection of the Red Cross/Red Crescent and the International Olympic Committee names/logos. ICANN had consulted with outside legal experts and when the GAC asked for a copy of the resulting report, the text we were given had no useful material because it was so heavily redacted. It was eventually released (quite some time later) with no redactions, but it was a frustrating experience to say the least; the logic behind the redactions was never made clear. Cheers, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167 FX: 202-482-1865 ________________________________ From: McAuley, David [dmcauley@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:17 PM To: Suzanne Radell; 'Robin Gross'; wp2-reconsideration@icann.org<mailto:wp2-reconsideration@icann.org> Cc: wp2@icann.org<mailto:wp2@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress That's a good point Suzanne. And in the area of transparency, we should also look at the IRP redaction policy. Some of the published decisions are heavily redacted - at least that is how some appear. Obviously there are legitimate areas for redaction and they should be retained but it merits a look to see if more information cannot be made public and, if not, whether there are measures in place to test the redactions periodically to see if the need for confidentiality might have passed. David McAuley From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Suzanne Radell Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:57 PM To: 'Robin Gross'; wp2-reconsideration@icann.org<mailto:wp2-reconsideration@icann.org> Cc: wp2@icann.org<mailto:wp2@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Hi all, and many thanks to Robin and others for their contributions. I am not sure my proposal will be as constructive as others, but I'm willing to give it a try. It would be helpful if work on this issue could also address the transparency aspects of the IRP, which would optimally provide for more access to updates/information (or at least that information which is not considered confidential) on a regular or routine basis. At present, the site contains the basic data related to the filing of an IRP and will provide the results of an IRP that has been completed. For all of the pending requests, there is no way for anyone other than the parties directly involved in an IRP to learn the status or the results of the CEP and/or the IRP itself. As an example, and I will defer to Alice Munyua on this to confirm, if the question had not been put to the ICANN Board by the African Union Commission during the GAC-Board meeting in Singapore seeking a status report of the .africa IRP, we would not have learned that the panel's work was in abeyance due to the death of one of the panelists. And all we know at the present time is that the work has been halted; no sense of when it might re-start, much less conclude. In looking at the list of issues embedded further down in this email chain, I initially thought that "accessibility" might be the right heading, but have since retreated from that since it applies more to who has access to an IRP and under what conditions. Would a more general "transparency" heading work? I trust you will let me know if you think this is a non-starter, so let me thank you (!) in advance for your feedback. Cheers, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA sradell@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov> 202-482-3167 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:58 PM To: wp2-reconsideration@icann.org<mailto:wp2-reconsideration@icann.org> Cc: wp2@icann.org<mailto:wp2@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Below are a few further elaborations on the Reconsideration Request reforms that are needed. Please provide additional feedback and suggestions on how to reform this process. Thanks, Robin ICANN Bylaws, Art IV, Section 2 is on the Reconsideration Review Process https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en Reconsideration Request reforms to address implementation and operational issues including: 1. Standing Amend "who" has proper standing to file a Reconsideration Request to widen its scope to include any party impacted by the ICANN decision / inaction. The current two step test of demonstrating both i) material harm, and ii) adversely impact is too burdensome and restrictive. Current rule: "Every requestor must be able to demonstrate that it has been materially harmed and adversely impacted by the action or inaction giving rise to the request." - Bylaws IV Section 2, Para 8 2. Standard of Review Amend the standard of reviewing a Reconsideration Request to include a re-examination of the underlying merits of arguments and decisions. Also broaden the types of decisions which can re-examined. Also, amend when BGC may "summarily" dismiss a request based on Requester not participating in a public comment period on the issue. (Para 9) 3. Composition Currently, the Board Governance Committee works with the legal dept to formulate an initial recommendation* to the full board. While I understand the need for some legal advice to the BGC, it may be the case that less reliance on the legal dept to guide the BGC on its recommendation would be more fruitful and encourage the board members themselves to engage deeper in the process, obtain a greater understanding of the underlying issue, and take more responsibility for making these decisions. (*Except: Issues regarding staff action/inactions and 3rd party panels in new gtld program, in which the BGC has option of making final decision itself, rather than full board. This should be amended so entire board learns what staff is up to, not just BGC). 4. Selection N/A 5. Decision-making Transparency improvements are needed regarding the information that make up the decision-making process. Reconsideration Request decisions currently have "precedential value" - so a party affected by a previous decision should be able to challenge the previous decision to which his case is bound under precedent. 6. Accessibility Extend the time deadline for filing a Reconsideration Request to 30 days. Currently, the deadline for filing is (generally) 15 days from when decision/action is taken and posted or when one can reasonably conclude action/decision will not happen. 7. Implementation Requestors may need a follow-up process regarding implementation of decision reconsidered 8. Due process Provide opportunity for oral argument with rebuttal opportunity. Currently it is at the Board's option if it wishes to permit an oral discussion. Provide all briefing materials supplied to board to Requester so that they may know the arguments against them and have an opportunity to respond. Final decisions should be issued sooner. Requests for "urgent" reconsideration should be broadened and less subjective in criteria for acceptance of "urgency". What else???? On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote: Hello, This email is to kick-off the discussion for the Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Mechanisms. Volunteers so far: Robin Gross, Ed Morris, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Carlos Gutierrez (please send a note to <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> to volunteer for this sub-group). This WP2 sub-group should will look specifically at issues to be addressed with respect to improving ICANN's accountability mechanisms involving a reconsideration process of a board or management decision. Specific Task: To review the current rules under which reconsideration occurs, and to propose appropriate changes to those rules to create adequate accountability. Existing "Reconsideration Request" accountability mechanism: See ICANN Bylaws Art. IV, Sec. 2) Board reconsideration of: - One or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies); or - One or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the party submitting the request could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or - One or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that are taken as a result of the Board's reliance on false or inaccurate material information. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestions for Change/Enhancement ICANN's Reconsideration Processes: 1. Mechanism for review of Board or management action in conflict with ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. 2. Mechanism to require community (members, AC/SOs, etc.) to require Board to act on, implement, amend, accelerate implementation of, a previously approved ATRT recommendation. 3. Change bylaws for Reconsideration Process: trigger when board acts arbitrarily or capriciously; decisions subject to Independent Review. 4. Reconsideration of staff action/inaction. 5. Broadly expand grounds on which ICANN decisions and operations can be challenged; lower threshold to succeed in a challenge. 6. Reasonable time deadlines and other due process considerations. What else? ------------------ Proposal to address implementation and operational issues including: * Standing * Standard of review * Composition * Selection * Decision-making * Accessibility * Implementation * Due process Work Party 2 Reconsideration mailing list - wp2-reconsideration@icann.org<mailto:wp2-reconsideration@icann.org> - is now active. Public archives may be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-reconsideration/ May this sub-group please have a wiki page? Thank you. Please volunteer for this sub-group - especially if you have any experience with ICANN's reconsideration process. Thanks, Robin

Hi Robin, Thank you for your suggestions March 8th and yesterday. Here are my personal thoughts: Agree with you on standing, standard of review, composition, accessibility, and the due process point about allowing the requestor to see the documents against it, subject to legitimate confidentiality requirements that would have to be worked out. I do not at present support oral argument for this process unless the board requests it and then rebuttal would make sense. As for precedential value, it makes sense that a party could argue that a precedent was incorrectly decided and should be reconsidered but it should be made clear, IMO, that that does not provide any relief going backward in time - in other words, if a precedent is overruled it does not reopen old cases. A few other points I would add. First, in Art. IV, Section 2, paragraph 4 I would make it clear that a frivolous claim amounts to a cost that would be extraordinary in nature. And in paragraph 9 (ii) it probably makes sense to delete the word "querulous" (not sure what it means in this context) and in paragraph 9 (iii) maybe add "actual" to "notice." David From: wp2-reconsideration-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp2-reconsideration-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:58 PM To: wp2-reconsideration@icann.org Cc: wp2@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [reconsideration] Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Below are a few further elaborations on the Reconsideration Request reforms that are needed. Please provide additional feedback and suggestions on how to reform this process. Thanks, Robin ICANN Bylaws, Art IV, Section 2 is on the Reconsideration Review Process https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en Reconsideration Request reforms to address implementation and operational issues including: 1. Standing Amend "who" has proper standing to file a Reconsideration Request to widen its scope to include any party impacted by the ICANN decision / inaction. The current two step test of demonstrating both i) material harm, and ii) adversely impact is too burdensome and restrictive. Current rule: "Every requestor must be able to demonstrate that it has been materially harmed and adversely impacted by the action or inaction giving rise to the request." - Bylaws IV Section 2, Para 8 2. Standard of Review Amend the standard of reviewing a Reconsideration Request to include a re-examination of the underlying merits of arguments and decisions. Also broaden the types of decisions which can re-examined. Also, amend when BGC may "summarily" dismiss a request based on Requester not participating in a public comment period on the issue. (Para 9) 3. Composition Currently, the Board Governance Committee works with the legal dept to formulate an initial recommendation* to the full board. While I understand the need for some legal advice to the BGC, it may be the case that less reliance on the legal dept to guide the BGC on its recommendation would be more fruitful and encourage the board members themselves to engage deeper in the process, obtain a greater understanding of the underlying issue, and take more responsibility for making these decisions. (*Except: Issues regarding staff action/inactions and 3rd party panels in new gtld program, in which the BGC has option of making final decision itself, rather than full board. This should be amended so entire board learns what staff is up to, not just BGC). 4. Selection N/A 5. Decision-making Transparency improvements are needed regarding the information that make up the decision-making process. Reconsideration Request decisions currently have "precedential value" - so a party affected by a previous decision should be able to challenge the previous decision to which his case is bound under precedent. 6. Accessibility Extend the time deadline for filing a Reconsideration Request to 30 days. Currently, the deadline for filing is (generally) 15 days from when decision/action is taken and posted or when one can reasonably conclude action/decision will not happen. 7. Implementation Requestors may need a follow-up process regarding implementation of decision reconsidered 8. Due process Provide opportunity for oral argument with rebuttal opportunity. Currently it is at the Board's option if it wishes to permit an oral discussion. Provide all briefing materials supplied to board to Requester so that they may know the arguments against them and have an opportunity to respond. Final decisions should be issued sooner. Requests for "urgent" reconsideration should be broadened and less subjective in criteria for acceptance of "urgency". What else???? On Mar 8, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote: Hello, This email is to kick-off the discussion for the Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress Mechanisms. Volunteers so far: Robin Gross, Ed Morris, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Carlos Gutierrez (please send a note to <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> to volunteer for this sub-group). This WP2 sub-group should will look specifically at issues to be addressed with respect to improving ICANN's accountability mechanisms involving a reconsideration process of a board or management decision. Specific Task: To review the current rules under which reconsideration occurs, and to propose appropriate changes to those rules to create adequate accountability. Existing "Reconsideration Request" accountability mechanism: See ICANN Bylaws Art. IV, Sec. 2) Board reconsideration of: - One or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies); or - One or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the party submitting the request could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or - One or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that are taken as a result of the Board's reliance on false or inaccurate material information. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestions for Change/Enhancement ICANN's Reconsideration Processes: 1. Mechanism for review of Board or management action in conflict with ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. 2. Mechanism to require community (members, AC/SOs, etc.) to require Board to act on, implement, amend, accelerate implementation of, a previously approved ATRT recommendation. 3. Change bylaws for Reconsideration Process: trigger when board acts arbitrarily or capriciously; decisions subject to Independent Review. 4. Reconsideration of staff action/inaction. 5. Broadly expand grounds on which ICANN decisions and operations can be challenged; lower threshold to succeed in a challenge. 6. Reasonable time deadlines and other due process considerations. What else? ------------------ Proposal to address implementation and operational issues including: * Standing * Standard of review * Composition * Selection * Decision-making * Accessibility * Implementation * Due process Work Party 2 Reconsideration mailing list - wp2-reconsideration@icann.org<mailto:wp2-reconsideration@icann.org> - is now active. Public archives may be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-reconsideration/ May this sub-group please have a wiki page? Thank you. Please volunteer for this sub-group - especially if you have any experience with ICANN's reconsideration process. Thanks, Robin