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

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Avri,


>>  Does this mean that the IRP would remain exorbitant and impossible for regular appellants to use?

Yes - that has been my concern also.   When we reviewed the IRP last time - the only example was the .xxx case and that cost both sides millions.   So I agree it needs to be accessible.    Some steps were added - e.g. to try to do the work via exchanges of documents and teleconferences - rather than face-to-face meetings.   In the .Africa case the panel decided to move to a face-to-face hearing - which added travel costs for both sides.


>>  The fact that the IRP is supported by ICANN and appellants only have to pay their own legal expenses is a major part of the solution offered on redress in the CCWG plan. 

Yes - the Board supports that model too.    I was purely referring to the costs of each sides own legal counsel.   In the Board's submission, we had proposed paying the costs of the legal counsel for the community in the case of MEM, to specifically address the concern you had raised.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin