Hi John

I guess I say "in case" because from my recent experience of getting some of our end-user group to ATLAS, just as an example, it doesn't matter how fair or transparent the process may be, there are still people who are going to attack it on he basis of unfairness or prejudice of some sort. And you are right, they waste an inordinate amount of time.

My point therefore, is if we are going to have an appeals process because that is what has been suggested by the Executive Group, then it should be as short as possible and to the point.

But Im not sure if we are discussing an ICANN process or an independent process for appeals?

Maureen

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:38 PM John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

> I believe that we should still have an appeals process just in case - with
> a much lighter touch and being very clear what the process addresses

Sorry, but I have no idea just in case what? I can imagine all sorts of
implausible ways that processes might fail but that doesn't mean we have
to invent a meta-process to deal with them all. If it's an ICANN process
failure, why wouldn't the existing ombudsman and appeal be used?

Any grant appeals process is going to be clogged by merit-free complaints
from people who are unhappy that their wonderful proposals didn't get
funded. It will be a huge waste of time.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly