Exactly! A robust , cost effective and timely appeal mechanism is required!

Robust - An appellate body that is independent and transparent and its decisions are enforceable and binding on ICANN,

Cost effective - appeals that are easily accessible and affordable to all applicants to pursue; and

Timely - the process is swift.

These simple things will make the DIDP process a lot more transparent and by extension strengthen accountability at ICANN.

Re-consideration of an ICANN's decision to refuse a DIDP request to the Board or to the Ombudsman ( who reports to the said Board) is unsatisfactory as it is open to undue influence by the Board / Ombudsman by caused by the day to day working relationships that those persons enjoy with the persons whose decision is being challenged - this is an inherently flawed model that does not promote confidence in the appeal process.

regards

Karel DOUGLAS

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly :)

On 06/10/2015 12:20 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:

Yes, but even in Canada, this tool is sometimes [mis]-used to force
people to narrow their requests unnecessarily.

I don't think it's unreasonable to go one step further and make ICANN
shoulder a high degree of the cost here unless it becomes truly
unreasonable, in which case tailoring the request or offering to let the
requestor pay should be the remedy. They get all these revenues from
DNS, may as well put them to good use.

Best,
Tamir

On 10/6/2015 12:03 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:

In Canada, when it is, you just have to pay the extra work load and/or
material to get it, and they offer you to refine your search instead
and work with you on your request. There is no way that a no is
acceptable.

Big item for transparency and accountability IMO.

Nicolas

On 06/10/2015 9:47 AM, Karel Douglas wrote:

In some jurisdictions this can be a legitimate reason for denial if
the request is too burdensome.