Thanks for that, Bruce. And so, a review can lead to a redress, but does
not necessarily do so.
If a review concludes a „a wrong or grievance” (Bruce’s wording) and the
advice is binding, redress will follow. If it does not conclude that,
there will be no redress. If the advice is a recommendation, redress might
follow. Or not.

So, @Mathieu re the preliminary draft: I would not consider a review
mechanism to be an example of a redress mechanism. A mechanism whereby the
outcome of (a) review(s) are worked into binding measures, is.

Cheers,

Roelof

On 15-01-15 09:18, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

>Hello Robin,
>
>
>>>  1.  I think some of the mechanisms that are labeled "redress" are
>>>actually "review".  See the definitions below, but basically, since
>>>mechanisms like ReconRequest and IRP and the Ombudsman are only making
>>>recommendations to the board to change its mind on a decision, and have
>>>no authority to set aside a decision on their own, they more
>>>appropriately categorized as "review" mechanisms (and not redress).
>
>
>Although in terms of an end-to-end process, once the Board approves a
>recommendation from mechanisms like ReconRequest and IRP and the
>Ombudsman it is possible to provide redress where a review has found that
>a decision has violated the bylaws etc. and where the review has
>recommended that ICANN provide redress.   In general when one of the
>existing accountability mechanisms finds fault in a decision by the
>Board, the Board would be seeking to provide some form of redress to the
>complainant.
>
>This is separate of course from the discussion about whether the outcome
>of an independent review is binding.
>
>Just wanted to note that the existing process "can" provide redress, just
>that currently the Board still does have discretion to approve or not
>approve any specific recommendation for redress.   If the Ombudsman
>recommended that as a result of a bad decision that the Board provide a
>payment of a Billion dollars to the complaint as a redress mechanism then
>that may be rejected, but if the redress was to allow an applicant to
>proceed to the next stage of say a new gTLD evaluation process - then I
>would expect the Board to provide such redress.
>
>I am using "redress" to mean a remedy or compensation for a wrong or
>grievance.
>
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
>Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1