9,082
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 52:
Line 52: + + + + + + + +
→ICANN Ombudsman's Action to the IRT Complaint
===ICANN Ombudsman's Action to the IRT Complaint===
===ICANN Ombudsman's Action to the IRT Complaint===
After receiving the complaint filed by ICA Legal Counsel Philip Corwin regarding the operations of the IRT, ICANN Ombudsman Frank Fowlie reviewed the case and conducted an investigation. On June 3, 2009, Fowlie sent a detailed preliminary report answering the concerns of Corwin.<ref>[http://www.internetcommerce.org/node/193 ICA Tells ICANN Ombudsman Office Its IRT Report is “Tardy, Nonresponsive and Non-Persuasive”]</ref>
Regarding Corwin's complain that he was not given a fair opportunity to either participate in the IRT as a member or to encourage others to join the application process, Fowlie verified the traffic on the GNSO listserv; the content of the ICANN website, news releases and he also personally asked the [[IP Constituency]] President on how they conduct their information dissemination. He found that the internet community was informed through the following:
# an announcement of the call for candidates on the GNSO list;
# it was included in the ICANN newsletter;
# and it was announced on the ICANN website
He also found that Corwin was invited by the IRT and he even conducted a presentation during the IRT meeting in San Francisco. Fowlie pointed out that based on the evidences, ICANN and or the selecting members of the IRT did not act in any way to prevent Corwin or any other person from learning about the call for IRT candidates. He believed that '''there is no evidence that the opportunity to serve as a member of the IRT was either unfairly administered, or that the general make-up of the members was unfair to those who were not selected.'''
==References==
==References==