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