All,

 

We have received a direct request (see below) from the CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs for further guidance with respect to the application of the IRP to the actions (or inactions) of PTI.

 

Moreover, we have had input from Sidley via the Client Committee as follows:

 

“Sidley spoke with Becky Burr from CCWG today regarding the CWG dependency for an IRP process.   Based on the call, it appears that the open question for CWG is whether the CWG dependency is adequately met with an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured)  – or whether in addition to such an ICANN bylaw, a separate process is also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues.   If the latter is required, then in order for CCWG to create such a process, it would need input from CWG on what the standard of review should be for those types of proceedings and what the type of process would be – for example, would non-binding mediation be sufficient to address a direct customer issue or would binding arbitration be required?   By clarifying this point, CCWG will be better positioned to ensure that the CWG dependency is being met in the CCWG proposal.”

 

So the essential question is:

 

A.     Is an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured) sufficient?

 

OR

 

B.     In addition to such an ICANN bylaw, is a separate process also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues?   

 

If B above, what type of process is necessary?

 

As discussed in our CWG meeting yesterday, it will be particularly helpful if when responding to the above, you provide a rationale for your response.

In addition, if possible, please make reference to (and be consistent with) the prior work of this CWG Stewardship (such as our proposal in response to the RFP from the ICG).

 

Given that the request from the CCWG Co-Chairs indicates their need to close this item by 28 January, we need to discuss this soon. Accordingly, we request that you provide input ASAP and, in any event, by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016.

 

Thank-you,

 

Jonathan & Lise

Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship

 

From: Alice Jansen [mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org]
Sent: 21 January 2016 17:05
To: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr@etno.eu>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>
Cc: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org
Subject: CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP

 

Sent on behalf of CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs

 

Dear Lise, Dear Jonathan,

This is to inform you that further to our call #79, the CCWG-ACCT seeks the CWG-Stewardship’s guidance on the two proposed approaches that were suggested to address the dependency that relates to PTI compliance through the Independent Review Process (IRP) i.e.: 

1.      Provide direct access to IRP for PTI action or inaction;

2.      Oblige ICANN in Bylaws to ensure PTI compliance, in which case failure to do is covered by IRP.

We are currently in the final stages of discussion to issue our supplemental report and would need to close this item by 28 January. Any prompt feedback you could send us would be much appreciated. 

We look forward to your guidance.

Thank you

Best regards

Mathieu, Thomas, León

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship