Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA.
Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I would appreciate a substantive example.
Alan
At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Alan,
I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility regardless how remote a chance it might be.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM To: CWG IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, Sub-section 6 which reads:
Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition.
I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered despite CSC and other interventions.
In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet.
I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want).
I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process.
Alan
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Alan, does this mean that some decisions, which considering the IANA environment where decisions might need to be taken fast, might end up being delayed through two reconsiderations/appeals? Kindest regards, Olivier On 25/08/2015 06:34, Alan Greenberg wrote:
BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan
At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA.
Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I would appreciate a substantive example.
Alan
At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Alan,
I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility regardless how remote a chance it might be.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM *To:* CWG IANA *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, Sub-section 6 which reads:
/Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition. / I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered despite CSC and other interventions.
In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet.
I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want).
I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process.
Alan
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Maybe what is needed is an abbreviated appeals process designed to work in a more timely manner given the specialized nature of the subject matter. On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
does this mean that some decisions, which considering the IANA environment where decisions might need to be taken fast, might end up being delayed through two reconsiderations/appeals? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 25/08/2015 06:34, Alan Greenberg wrote:
BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan
At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA.
Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I would appreciate a substantive example.
Alan
At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Alan,
I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility regardless how remote a chance it might be.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM *To:* CWG IANA *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, Sub-section 6 which reads:
*Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition. * I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered despite CSC and other interventions.
In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet.
I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want).
I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process.
Alan
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Well, decisions tend to be made. Period. SO if some one uses any mechanism, it will lengthen the overall process. Or if the problem is that no decision was taken, this could shorten it. At 25/08/2015 02:56 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Alan,
does this mean that some decisions, which considering the IANA environment where decisions might need to be taken fast, might end up being delayed through two reconsiderations/appeals? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 25/08/2015 06:34, Alan Greenberg wrote:
BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan
At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA.
Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I would appreciate a substantive example.
Alan
At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Alan,
I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility regardless how remote a chance it might be.
Chuck
From: <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM To: CWG IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, Sub-section 6 which reads:
Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition.
I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered despite CSC and other interventions.
In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet.
I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want).
I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process.
Alan
CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD <http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
The Reconsideration process asks the Board to reconsider a decision that it has made. The relevant section of the CWG proposal does not relate to ICANN Board decisions at all; rather it relates to actions or inactions of PTI (which may or may not be actions or inactions of the PTI Board). Therefore, it seems to me that the Reconsideration process is irrelevant to this question. Conceivably, there could be a reconsideration addressed to the PTI Board, but that may not meet the need for an appeal from a PTI (not PTI board) action or inaction as expressed in the CWG proposal. I would also say that a "reconsideration" BY an organ that has made a decision is not the same as an appeal FROM a decision by an organ -- an appeal, almost by definition, goes to another entity -- in ICANN process, an Independent Review Panel. We could expand the mandate of the IRP to meet these considerations directly, but I don't think anything other than that (or the creation of a new appeal mechanism) would satisfy the CWG proposal. Greg On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan
At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA.
Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I would appreciate a substantive example.
Alan
At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Alan,
I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility regardless how remote a chance it might be.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM *To:* CWG IANA *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, Sub-section 6 which reads:
*Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition. * I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered despite CSC and other interventions.
In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet.
I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want).
I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process.
Alan
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Good points Greg. It may make the most sense to simply give gTLD registries standing to file an IRP with ICANN as previously agreed to. ICANN would be making the decision regarding delegation or re-delegation or un-delegation and giving directions to PTI. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:59 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: Gomes, Chuck; CWG IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism The Reconsideration process asks the Board to reconsider a decision that it has made. The relevant section of the CWG proposal does not relate to ICANN Board decisions at all; rather it relates to actions or inactions of PTI (which may or may not be actions or inactions of the PTI Board). Therefore, it seems to me that the Reconsideration process is irrelevant to this question. Conceivably, there could be a reconsideration addressed to the PTI Board, but that may not meet the need for an appeal from a PTI (not PTI board) action or inaction as expressed in the CWG proposal. I would also say that a "reconsideration" BY an organ that has made a decision is not the same as an appeal FROM a decision by an organ -- an appeal, almost by definition, goes to another entity -- in ICANN process, an Independent Review Panel. We could expand the mandate of the IRP to meet these considerations directly, but I don't think anything other than that (or the creation of a new appeal mechanism) would satisfy the CWG proposal. Greg On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA. Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I would appreciate a substantive example. Alan At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Alan, I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility regardless how remote a chance it might be. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM To: CWG IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, Sub-section 6 which reads: Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition. I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered despite CSC and other interventions. In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet. I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want). I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process. Alan _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
But what about issues other than del/resell? The CWG was not so narrow. On Tuesday, August 25, 2015, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Good points Greg. It may make the most sense to simply give gTLD registries standing to file an IRP with ICANN as previously agreed to. ICANN would be making the decision regarding delegation or re-delegation or un-delegation and giving directions to PTI.
Chuck
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:59 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; CWG IANA *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
The Reconsideration process asks the Board to reconsider a decision that it has made. The relevant section of the CWG proposal does not relate to ICANN Board decisions at all; rather it relates to actions or inactions of PTI (which may or may not be actions or inactions of the PTI Board). Therefore, it seems to me that the Reconsideration process is irrelevant to this question. Conceivably, there could be a reconsideration addressed to the PTI Board, but that may not meet the need for an appeal from a PTI (not PTI board) action or inaction as expressed in the CWG proposal. I would also say that a "reconsideration" BY an organ that has made a decision is not the same as an appeal FROM a decision by an organ -- an appeal, almost by definition, goes to another entity -- in ICANN process, an Independent Review Panel. We could expand the mandate of the IRP to meet these considerations directly, but I don't think anything other than that (or the creation of a new appeal mechanism) would satisfy the CWG proposal.
Greg
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca');>> wrote:
BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan
At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA.
Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I would appreciate a substantive example.
Alan
At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Alan,
I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility regardless how remote a chance it might be.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM *To:* CWG IANA *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism
On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, Sub-section 6 which reads:
*Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition. * I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered despite CSC and other interventions.
In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet.
I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want).
I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process.
Alan
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I was not intending to narrow it, just giving some examples. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; CWG IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism But what about issues other than del/resell? The CWG was not so narrow. On Tuesday, August 25, 2015, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Good points Greg. It may make the most sense to simply give gTLD registries standing to file an IRP with ICANN as previously agreed to. ICANN would be making the decision regarding delegation or re-delegation or un-delegation and giving directions to PTI. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:59 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: Gomes, Chuck; CWG IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism The Reconsideration process asks the Board to reconsider a decision that it has made. The relevant section of the CWG proposal does not relate to ICANN Board decisions at all; rather it relates to actions or inactions of PTI (which may or may not be actions or inactions of the PTI Board). Therefore, it seems to me that the Reconsideration process is irrelevant to this question. Conceivably, there could be a reconsideration addressed to the PTI Board, but that may not meet the need for an appeal from a PTI (not PTI board) action or inaction as expressed in the CWG proposal. I would also say that a "reconsideration" BY an organ that has made a decision is not the same as an appeal FROM a decision by an organ -- an appeal, almost by definition, goes to another entity -- in ICANN process, an Independent Review Panel. We could expand the mandate of the IRP to meet these considerations directly, but I don't think anything other than that (or the creation of a new appeal mechanism) would satisfy the CWG proposal. Greg On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca');>> wrote: BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA. Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I would appreciate a substantive example. Alan At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Alan, I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility regardless how remote a chance it might be. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM To: CWG IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, Sub-section 6 which reads: Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition. I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered despite CSC and other interventions. In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet. I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want). I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process. Alan _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I agree with Greg’s analysis in his first message. This is not a Reconsideration request at all, but an IRP appeals process. However, like Greg, perhaps, I am still not entirely clear about what kinds of things can be appealed other than delegations/redels --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:18 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: CWG IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism I was not intending to narrow it, just giving some examples. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; CWG IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism But what about issues other than del/resell? The CWG was not so narrow. On Tuesday, August 25, 2015, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Good points Greg. It may make the most sense to simply give gTLD registries standing to file an IRP with ICANN as previously agreed to. ICANN would be making the decision regarding delegation or re-delegation or un-delegation and giving directions to PTI. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:59 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: Gomes, Chuck; CWG IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism The Reconsideration process asks the Board to reconsider a decision that it has made. The relevant section of the CWG proposal does not relate to ICANN Board decisions at all; rather it relates to actions or inactions of PTI (which may or may not be actions or inactions of the PTI Board). Therefore, it seems to me that the Reconsideration process is irrelevant to this question. Conceivably, there could be a reconsideration addressed to the PTI Board, but that may not meet the need for an appeal from a PTI (not PTI board) action or inaction as expressed in the CWG proposal. I would also say that a "reconsideration" BY an organ that has made a decision is not the same as an appeal FROM a decision by an organ -- an appeal, almost by definition, goes to another entity -- in ICANN process, an Independent Review Panel. We could expand the mandate of the IRP to meet these considerations directly, but I don't think anything other than that (or the creation of a new appeal mechanism) would satisfy the CWG proposal. Greg On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca');>> wrote: BTW, I presume that once we use the Board Reconsideration process, *THAT* action is subject to an IRP. Alan At 24/08/2015 11:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Chuck, during the call, you mentioned gTLD redelegations. For those, the IRP *IS* available since that is an ICANN action, not IANA. Why do we need a full-blown IRP for appealing IANA decisions? I would appreciate a substantive example. Alan At 24/08/2015 10:56 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Alan, I see no problem with using the Reconsideration Process first but I do not believe that we should eliminate the IRP possibility regardless how remote a chance it might be. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:45 PM To: CWG IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Appeal Mechanism On the call the other day, Allan MacGillivray raised the issue of a mechanism to appeal IANA decisions. I believe that he was referring to the text in the CWG Proposal Section III "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability", Paragraph 106, Sub-section 6 which reads: Appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition. I made the case that there would be few and far-between cases of IANA decisions that could be appealed (with the perhaps sole example being a decision of IANA that a request from a registry should NOT be honoured). Perhaps I was correct, but that is rather moot. The CWG did specify that such an appeal mechanism should be provided, it is now an integral part of the ICG proposal, and admittedly their could be cases where an IANA decision was made and not altered despite CSC and other interventions. In my mind, although perhaps the IRP could be modified to address the need, that would take a lot of work for a situation that may never happen, and moreover, the IRP is a lengthy process not geared to the pace of IANA actions or the operational pace of the Internet. I would suggest that the Board Reconsideration Process would be a viable appeal mechanism in this case. It should be relatively easy to adjust the revised bylaws to allow reconsideration of a decision of an ICANN subsidiary or wholly controlled affiliate and to have the PIT bylaws allow for ICANN to advise that an IANA decision be modified (or whatever level of binding resolution we want). I would suggest that we recommend to the CCWG-Accountability to allow for a PTI appeal mechanism via the ICANN Board Reconsideration process. Alan _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Mueller, Milton L -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond