[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 18 Sep 2015, at 10:20, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

>>> The CCWG Draft Proposal provides the IRP to allow the community to ensure that ICANN is following its Bylaws.
> 
> Yes the ICANN Board also agrees that the IRP still applies to all bylaws.   It can be used by individuals, companies or groups to bring actions.

Except that the Board disagrees with our proposal to extend access to the IRP to all materially affected parties.

The consequence of this would be that a domain registrant harmed by a new ICANN policy outside the scope of the Mission would have no recourse. They would have to hope that the policy would be challenged by ICANN constituent elements in the MEM, which is highly unlikely if the policy was developed and supported by the community.

I don't think this is acceptable. ICANN needs to be kept within its limited Mission, not just kept to such excess as the SOs may tolerate.